Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 
I I II I II I II I II 



3 1223 06446 5926 



*/* 




San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Puolic Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 




[All Committees] 

Government Document Section 
City and County of §an Francisco Main Library 

JMeeting Minutes 

Finance Committee v-'^-™« 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



Wednesday, August 01, 2001 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 






MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m. 

011226 [Reserved Funds, Aging and Adult Services] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Aging and Adult Services (File 010370, 

Ordinance No. 60-01), in the amount of $1,015,000 to fund the "unmet needs" of seniors. (Adult and Aging 

Services) 

7/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the July 25. 2001 meeting 

7/25/01, CONTINUED. Corrected release amount to Sl.015,000 as requested by department. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Sandra Nathan. Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS); 

Supervisor Leno: Supervisor Gonzalez; Darrick Lam, DAAS; Supervisor Peskin; John Clark, Deputy Director, DAAS; Bernie Rush, 

Senior PAC; Bill Hollabaugh, Advisory Council to DAAS. 

Continued to August 1, 2001. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst: Dr. Sandra Nathan, Executive Director, 
Department of Aging and Adult Sen'ices; John Clark, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Aging and 
Adult Senices; Darrick Lam, Department of Aging and Adult Services; Supervisor Sandoval. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $1,015,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

AUG - 8 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 



I'rinlcdal 11:49 IW 0H S/6/0I 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes August 1, 2001 



011120 [Fines for Parking Violations] 

Resolution approving schedule of penalties for violation of state and local parking laws. (Parking and Traffic 
Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

6/13/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
7/3/01, TRANSFERRED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 

7/12/01, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Fred Hamdun. Parking and Traffic; Stan Jones, Budget Analyst; Richard Skaff, 
Mayor's Office; Diana Hammons, Parking and Traffic; James Howard. Parking Traffic; Greg Castillo; Karen Franklin; Emily Drennen, 
SFBAC; Daniel Murphy; Edward Hasbrouck; Banry Taranto, UTW; Roger Bazeley, SFPTA; Edward Evans; Linda Ulrich; Ruth 
Radetsky; Sean Worsey; Ian Berke; Michael Kwok; Bruce Oka; Bob Planthold; Casey Allen; Greg Hayes; Michael Smith; John Winston; 
Leah Shahum, SFBC. 

7/12/01 Amend Schedule of Penalties as follows: T27 MC Parking Zone S33.00; T219 Parking Meter M/C $33.00; T315A Residential 
remains at S33.00; V22500F Parking on Sidewalk $50.00 (2001-2002), $75.00 (2002-2003), $100.00 (2003-2004). 
7/12/01, REFERRED to Finance Committee. Referred to Finance Committee for fiscal impact, to be heard within 30 days. 
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Fred Hamdun, Executive Director, 
Department of Parking and Traffic; Edward Evans, Community Resources Action Project; Ian Berke, Pacific 
Heights Residents Association; Norman Rolfe; Susan Haun, Walk San Francisco; John Winston, Walk San 
Francisco; Michael Smith, President of the Board, Walk San Francisco; Barry Taranto, United Taxicab 
Workers. 

Schedule of Penalties amended as follows: T27 MC Parking Zone $50.00; T219 Parking Meter M/C $50.00. 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011127 [Parking Violation Penalties] 

Ordinance amending Article 3 Sections 32, 32.1, 32.1.1 through 32.1.11, 32.2, 32.2.1, 32.5, 32.6, 32.6.1, 

32.6.2, 32.6.3, 32.6.5, 32.6.6, 32.6.7, 32.6.8, 32.6.10 through 32.6.14, 32.6.16 through 32.6.27, 32.20, Article 

7 Section 130, Article 12, Section 210, and Article 16, Section 412 of the San Francisco Traffic Code regarding 

penalties for parking violations and authorizing the setting of specific penalties for parking violations through a 

schedule of fines approved by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. (Parking and Traffic Department) 

6/13/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 

6/28/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Speakers: None. 

7/12/01, REFERRED to Finance Committee. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Fred Hamdun, Parking and Traffic; Stan Jones, Budget 

Analyst; Richard Skaff, Mayor's Office; Diana Hammons, Parking and Traffic; James Howard, Parking Traffic; Greg Castillo; Karen 

Franklin; Emily Drennen, SFBAC; Daniel Murphy; Edward Hasbrouck; Barry Taranto, UTW; Roger Bazeley, SFPTA; Edward Evans; 

Linda Ulrich; Ruth Radetsky; Sean Worsey; Ian Berke; Michael Kwok; Bruce Oka. Bob Planthold. Casey Allen; Greg Hayes; Michael 

Smith; John Winston; Leah Shahum, SFBC 

Referred to Finance Committee for fiscal impact, to be heard within 30 days. 

7/25/01, CLERICAL CORRECTION. Title clerically corrected by City Attorney on page 1, line 6, after "the," by adding "San Francisco 

Traffic Code." 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Fred Hamdun, Executive Director, 
Department of Parking and Traffic; Edward Evans, Community Resources Action Project; Ian Berke, Pacific 
Heights Residents Association; Norman Rolfe; Susan Haun, Walk San Francisco; John Winston, Walk San 
Francisco; Michael Smith, President of the Board, Walk San Francisco; Barry Taranto, United Taxicab 
Workers. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 11:49 AM on 8/6/01 

3 1223 06446 5926 






Finance Committee Meeting Minutes August 1, 2001 



011228 [IHSS Contract Modification with Addus Healthcare for In-Home Supportive Services] 

Resolution approving the modification of the contract between the City and County of San Francisco and 
Addus Healthcare for the provision of In-Home Supportive Services for the period from July 1, 2001 to August 
31, 2001, in the increased amount of $1,360,132, for a total contract amount of $18,557,303. (Human Services 
Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Economic Vitality, Small Business and Social Policy Committee. 

7/5/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Trent Rhorer, Executive Director, Department of Human Services; Theodore 

Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Margaret Baran, Executive Director, IHSS 

Consortium. 

TABLED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 I'nr.t, :l at 1 1 .4'> tW on 8/6/01 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/4minutes2001sanf 



CITY AND COUNTY 



)(>M 



l/oi 




OF SAN ] 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



July 26, 2001 






TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

JUL 3 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 -File 01-1226 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of July 
25, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Aging and Adult Services 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds for the 
Department of Aging and Adult Services, in the amount of 
$1,015,000 to provide: (1) $1,000,000 for unmet needs of 
senior citizens to be provided by non-profit community- 
based providers and (2) $15,000 for the infrastructure 
needs of Self-Help for the Elderly a non-profit community- 
based provider. 

$1,015,000 

Monies previously appropriated and placed on reserve by 
the Board of Supervisors ($1,439,000 in funds from the 
FY 2000-2001 General Fund Reserve and $561,000 from 
FY 2000-2001 Surplus Parking Tax 1 Revenues). 



1 Under Article 9, Section 615 of the Administrative Code, one third of all Parking Tax collections, 
excluding the funds allocated to the Municipal Railway, is dedicated to Senior Citizen's Programs. 
The Controller's Six Month Budget Status Report, issued on February 7, 2001 projected increased 
Parking Tax collections of approximately $1.7 million during FY 2000-2001. Therefore, the 
Controller certified the availability of $561,000 for Senior Citizen's Programs. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Description: In April of 2001, the Board of Supervisors appropriated 

and placed on reserve a total of $2,000,000, including 
$1,000,000 for infrastructure needs of non-profit agencies 
providing services to seniors and an additional $1,000,000 
to fund non-profit agencies providing unmet needs of 
senior citizens. This $2,000,000 supplemental 

appropriation was funded by: 

General Fund Reserve $1,439,000 
Surplus FY 2000-01 Parking Tax 

Revenue for Senior Programs 561,000 

Total $2,000,000 

In May of 2001, the Finance Committee approved the 
release of $985,000 of the $2,000,000 total for 
infrastructure needs of non-profit agencies providing 
services to senior citizens. The Department is now 
requesting the release of the remaining $1,015,000 to 
fund non-profit agencies providing the unmet needs of 
senior citizens. 

Mr. John Clark, Acting Executive Director of the 
Department of Aging and Adult Services, reports in his 
memo of July 18, 2001 (Attachment I) that a Request for 
Proposals (RFP) was issued on May 16, 2001 to 62 
community based non-profit agencies to provide for the 
unmet needs of seniors. 

Attachment II, contains a list of the 34 non-profit 
agencies which responded to the RFP, the amounts 
requested, the amounts allocated, and a brief description 
of the services to be provided. As shown in Attachment II, 
$956,000 was allocated to 17 non-profit agencies and 
$44,000 was allocated for a work order to the Municipal 
Railway for paratransit services. 

Attachment III contains allocations by category of 
services by non-profit agency. 

As indicated in Attachment IV, two of the 17 non-profit 
agencies, Self-Help for the Elderly and Meals on Wheels 
have been recommended to receive more than one 
allocation. 

Attachment V lists the allocations by Supervisorial 
District and by Senior Central Districts. 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Clark, the recommended allocations of 

the subject $1,000,000 to non-profit agencies for the 
unmet needs of senior citizens placed special emphasis on 
joint collaborations between non-profit agencies, specific 
performance measures, and proposals serving senior 
citizens groups with multiple needs. 

Mr. Clark notes that the rating of the proposals was 
based on scores assigned by the 11 evaluators who are 
identified in Attachment VI. These 11 evaluators 
individually reviewed these proposals and assigned scores 
based on various criteria. According to Mr. Clark, the 
evaluation criteria used to award contracts included: a) a 
documented history of providing the service being 
requested, b) the ability of the agency to evaluate its own 
effectiveness in service delivery, c) the ability to develop a 
sound budget proposal and the ability to obtain additional 
non-City funds through fundraising efforts, d) the ability 
to collaborate on service delivery with other non-profit 
agencies, and e) an innovative proposal serving a new 
senior citizen population. 

2. Mr. Clark advises that both the Department and the 
advocates who requested these supplemental 
appropriation consider the subject $1,000,000 as funding 
for ongoing needs of seniors that have not been previously 
funded by the City. Therefore, Mr. Clark states that, it is 
anticipated that the Department may request a 
continuation of funding to meet the unmet needs of senior 
citizens in its FY 2002-2003 budget. However, Mr. Clark 
adds that a final determination has not been made as to 
whether this amount of funding will be requested in the 
Department's baseline budget in FY 2002-2003. 

3. Mr. Clark anticipates that the contracts with the 17 
non-profit agencies which have been recommended for an 
allocation of funds would begin in August of 2001 and end 
on June 30, 2002. According to Mr. Clark, the non-profit 
agencies would be subject to periodic evaluations by 
Department staff several times during the contract period 
in order to ensure that performance standards are being 
met. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

4. When the $985,000 was previously released by the 
Finance Committee for the infrastructure needs of non- 
profit community based providers, $15,000 not released 
by the Finance Committee for Self Help for the Elderly as 
explained in Attachment VII. Mr. Clark is now- 
requesting the release of that $15,000 for Self Help for the 
Elderly to cover the costs of technology, training and 
capital. 

5. In response to a request from the Finance Committee 
at its meeting of July 25, 2001, the Department of aging 
and Adult Services will be providing the following 
information to the Finance Committee: 

• A compilation of all contract service providers funded 
by the Department by Supervisorial District; 

• Contract Service providers that provide services on a 
City-wide basis that cannot be allocated to a 
Supervisorial District; 

• A breakdown of the City's Senior Population by 
Supervisorial District. 

Such information will be provided directly to the Finance 
Committee prior to the August 1, 2001 meeting. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



City & County of San Francisco 

WILLIE L BROWN, JR., Mayor 

Office on the Aging 

County Veterans Service Office 




Attachment I 
Department of Aging & Adult Services 

SANDRA Y. NATHAN, Ph.D. , Executive Director 

Mental Health Conservator 
Public Administrator-Public Guardian 



MEMO TO: 
FROM: 
DATE: 
IE: 



Pascal St. Gerard, Budget Analyst's Office 
John Clark, Deputy Executive Director 
July 18, 2001 
"Unmet Needs" RFP 



We issued the RFP on May 16, 2001. We sent a notice of funding availability to 62 community-based 
organizations in San Francisco, this included both the Office on the Aging's current 45 contractors as well as 
17 other organizations that may have been interested. 

Our log book indicated that 45 of these organizations subsequently received a copy of the full RFP, and as 
you know, some 34 of these organizations ultimately filed proposals, of which we recommend funding 21 
(18 agencies, but 21 proposals as some organizations filed separate proposals for different funding 
categories). 

Let me know if you need more information. 



5 Van Ness Street, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94102 



(41 5) 864-6051 Fax Number (41 5) 864-3991 



07/19/2001 15:46 



4158S43991 



CCSF COA 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



City and County of San Francisco 

Department of Aging and Adult Services 

$1 ,000,000 Unmet Needs RFP 

Listing of 34 Agencies Submitting Proposals with 

Total Amount Requested and Recommended 
and Brief Description of Services to be Provided 



Agency 

Asian Law Caucus 
Bayview Hunters Point 
Bernal Hghts Neigh. Ctr. 
Catholic Charities 



Centra Latino 



Requested 

$50,000 
$90,762 
$48,690 
$127,335 



$82,071 



Edgewood Child. & Fam. $40,700 

Episcopal Com. Serv. $41,880 

Filipino-Amer. Council $108,432 

Family Service Agency $27,500 

Goldman Aging Inst. $31 1 ,21 6 



Hearing Society $442,214 

International Institute $66,671 

Jewish Fam. & Child. $194,651 

John King Senior Center $32,697 



Klmochi, Inc. 
Korean Center, Inc. 



$50,000 
$100,197 



Lighthouse for the Blind $87,962 
Meals on Wheels $281 ,956 



Mission Neighbhd. Center $49,700 
Network for Elders $39,222 

New Leaf Services $171,864 

North of Market Sen. Ser. $58,159 
On-Lok Day Services $42,690 

Planning for Elders $45,000 



Recommended 

-0- 

$20,000 
$45,000 
-0- 



-0- 

$40,700 
-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

$20,000 



-0- 
$65,300. 

$70,000 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 
$150,000 



-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

$40,000 

$45,000 



Service Description^*) 

Housing Counseling 
Congregate Meals 
Case Management 
Community Services, Case 
Management, In-Home 
Supportive Services. 
Home-Delivered Meals, 
Community Services 
Community Services 
Case Management 
Case Management, 
Housing Counseling 
Community Services 
Case Management, 
Community Services 
(Suicide Prevention) 
Community Services 
Community Services (Legal 
Aid) 

Case Management. 
Community Services 
Community Services 
(Transportation) 
Community Services 
Case Management, 
Community Services 
Community Services 
Home-Delivered Meals. 
Case Management . 
Community Services 
Case Management 
Case Management 
Community Services 
Community Services 
Home-Delivered Meals 
In-Home Supportive 
Services (Senior) Advocacy 



C.VMV aCCyMENn^-BOS^AYOR^^hfTT^CUE^NMETTVPPNAiATTACH.CXX: 



Project Open Hand $22,000 

Russian American CS $ 1 08, 000 



Samoan Community Ctr. 560,225 
San Francisco Senior Ctr. $44,370 
Self-Help for Elderly $367,566 



Senor Action Network $70,000 

SF Adult Day Servs. Net. $46,000 

Veteran's Equity Ctr. $100,000 

Vietnamese Elderly $128,395 



Western Addition Sen. $40,000 
Subtotal 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2" 

$22,000 Congregate Meals 

$20,000 Congregate Meals , Home- 

Delivered Meals, Case 
Management 
$30,000 Congregate Meals 

$44,000 Case Management 

$129,000 Congregate Meals. Home- 

Delivered Meals, Case 
Management, Community 
Services , In-Home 
Supportive Services 
$70,000 Housing Counseling 

$46,000 Adult Day Health Services 

-0- Case Management 

-0- Congregate Meals, Home- 

Delivered Meals, 
Community Services, 
Housing Counseling 
-0- Home-Delivered Meals 

$ 956,000 



Municipal Railway $44,000 $44,000 Paratransit Services 

Total $3,178,125 $1,000,000 



**Underlininq indicates the proposal which was funded, when there was more than one 
proposal submitted. 



C\MY CWCUM6WTS\ECSJvWYC«-COrrmou.ER\UNMETRFPRNAi>TTACH.CCC 



07/T9/2881 15:46 



4158543991 



CCSF COA 



Attachment III 



City and County of San Francisco 

Department of Aging and Adult Services 

$1,000,000 Unmet Needs RFP 

Recommendations by Category 

(6^6/01) 



ADHC Enhancements 

San Francisco ADS Network 



Recom mendation 



46,000.00 



In-Home Supportive Services 

Self-Help for the Elderly 

In-Home Support Advocacy 
Planning for Eiders in the Central City 

Housing Counseling/Advocacy 
Senior Action Network 



75,000.00 



45,000.00 



70,000.00 



Congregate Meals 

Project Open Hand 

Self-Help for the Elderly 

Russian American Community Services 

Sarnoan Community Development Center 



Home-Delivered Meals 

Meals on Wheels 

On Lok Day Services 

Western Addition Senior Citizens 



Case Management 

San Francisco Senior Center 

Meals on Wheels 

3ernal Heights Neighborhood Center 

Jewish Family & Children's Services 



Community Services/Social Services 

Edgewood Center for Children & Families 

International Institute 

Goldman lOA(CESP) 

Self-Help for the Elderly (DWSSW#9) 

BVHP Multipupose Senior Services, Inc. 



Sub-Total 

Paratransit Services 

Work Order with Municipal Railway 

Grand Total 



n 



n 



n 
n 



20,000.00 
65,000.00 
20,000.00 
30,000.00 



s 


135,000.00 


$ 
s 
$ 


80,000.00 
40,000.00 
40,000.00 


s 


160,000.00 


s 
$ 
$ 
s 


44,000.00 
70,000.00 

45,000.00 
70,000.00 


$ 


229,000.00 


s 

5 
$ 

s 
$ 


40,700,00 
65,300.00 
20,000.00 
50,000.00 
20,000.00 


$ 


1S6,000.00 


$ 


956,000.00 


s 


44,000.00 


$ 


1,000,000.00 



Key: fl Agoncy with no previous contractual relationship with the Office on the Aging 

f? Agency with less than one (1) year of contractual relations/up with ths Office on the Aging 



Home^ProgramMJnmet Needs RFPMansgement Recammendatlcn_rev4.:tfs 



iz/iy/zbui 12:2/ msab^jyai ^-^ »~n 

Attachment IV 



■ City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Aging and Adult Sen/ice 
31,000,000 Unmet Needs RFP Fiscal Year 2001-02 



Recommended Agencies 
for Funding in Multiple Program Categories 



Self-Help for the Elderly 

In-Home Supportive Services 375,000 

Congregate Meals $65,000 

Community Services/Social Services $50,000 



Meals on Wheels 

Home-Delivered Meals $80,000 

Case Management $70,000 



^.HOMBflAVIDNWVPOOCSVci.wpd 



Attachment V 



Office on the Aging 
FY 2001-02 Unmet Needs Funding 
by Eleven Supervisorial Districts 



Supervisorial District 


Unmet Needs Funds 


1 


S 138,150 


2 I 


S 51,425 


3 I 


S 93,925 


4 


S 35,500 


5 I 


S 30,550 


6 


S 172,425 


7 


$ 107,900 


a 


S 62,660 


9 


$ 46,245 


10 


$ 211,000 


11 


$ 50,220 


total 


$ 1,000,000 



Office on the Aging 
FY 2001-02 Unmet Needs Funding 
by Ten Neighborhood Senior Central Districts 



Sr. Central District 


Unmet Needs Funds 


1 


S 153,500 


2 


S 45,500 


3 


$ 110,500 


4 


5 250,500 


5 


S 120,500 


6 


I S 65,500 


7 


|S 75,500 


3 


S 45,500 


9 


S 97,500 


10 


S 35,500 


total 


S 1,000,000 



r. , WCME\S7ELLA.CYIM_unrr,et_Sup Oistd c/30/01 
10 



37/18/2801 18:27 



4158543991 



PAGE 02 

Attachment VT 



Review Panel 

Request for Proposal 
Unmet Needs Fiscal Year 20001-02 



Housing Counseling/Advocacy (4 Proposals) 

Anne Kronenberg, Department of Public Health 
Joe LaTorre, Mayor's Office of Housing 



In-Home Support Services (2 proposals) 

In-Home Support Advocacy (1 proposal) 

ADHC Enhancements (1 proposal) 

RamOna Davies, Northern Ca. Presbyterian Homes and Services 
Joe Lam, Mayor's Office of Community Development 



Congregate Meals (5 proposals) 

Home-Delivered Meals (7 proposals) 

Mary Schembri, Hospice by the Bay • 
Dave Curto, Department of Human Services 
Bernie Rush, Consumer Advocate 



Case Management (14 proposals) 

Michael Radetsky, Department of Public Health 
Bill Haskell, Department of Aging and Adult Services 



Community Services/Social Services (18 proposals) 
Galen Leong, Department of Public Health 
Nancy Giunta, Department of Aging and Adult Services 



FAHCMQ0AV10NWPCaCSWpra«wi94 



11 



<?\ 



City & County of San Francisco 

WILLIE L. BROWN. JR., Mayor 

Office on the Aging 

County Veterans Service Office 




Attachment VII 
Department of Aging & Adult Services 

SANDRA Y. NATHAN, Ph.D. , Executive Director 



Mental Health Conservator 
Public Administrator-Public Guardian 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

FROM: John Clark, Deputy Executive Director 

DATE: July 18, 2001 

RE: Release of Final 515,000 from Infrastructure Allocation 



As you will recall, the Finance Committee retained (that is, did not release) $15,000 of the first $1,000,000 
of the Daly Supplemental (the so-called ''Infrastructure'' portion). This retention was pending the department 
making a determination as to how to fund the Asian American Elderly Humanitarian Society. Since the 
department submitted proposals from community-based agencies totaling $1,000,000 (and not the $985,000 
ultimately released), the department held back $15,000 from Self-Help for the Elderly's $117,000 total 
allotment. 

Subsequent to this meeting, we have found sufficient funds elsewhere in the department to fund the AAEHS 
at $15,000 for FY 01-02. Accordingly, we request the release of this vestigal $15,000 to bring Self-Help for 
the Elderly back to their original recommended amount of $1 17,000. As indicated in their original proposal, 
Self-Help plans to use these funds for technology enhancements and training. 



12 



25 Van Ness Street, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94102 



(41 5) 864-6051 Fax Number (41 5) 864-3991 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 2 and 3 - Files 01-1120 and 01-1127 



Note: These items were transferred from the Housing, Transportation and Land 
Use Committee at its meeting of July 12, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

01-1120 

Resolution approving a schedule of penalties for violation 

of State and local parking laws. 

01-1127 

Ordinance amending Article 3 Sections 32, 32.1, 32.1.1 
through 32.1.11, 32.2, 32.2.1, 32.5, 32.6, 32.6.1, 32.6.2, 
32.6.3, 32.6.5, 32.6.6, 32.6.7, 32.6.8, 32.6.10 through 
32.6.14, 32.6.16 through 32.6.27, 32.20, Article 7 Section 
130, Article 12 Section 210, and Article 16 Section 412 
regarding penalties for parking violations and authorizing 
the setting of specific penalties for parking violations 
through a schedule of fines approved by resolution of the 
Board of Supervisors (File 01-1120). 

Prior to 1993, parking violations were designated as 
criminal offenses and the process of issuing and collecting 
parking citation fines was within the jurisdiction of the 
Municipal Court. In 1993, under State Assembly Bill 408, 
the State decriminalized parking violations and assigned 
parking violations to a civil status. In response to the 
changed designation, the City transferred responsibility 
for processing and collecting parking citation penalties 
from the Municipal Court to the Department of Parking 
and Traffic (DPT). A.B. 408 also authorized the DPT to 
establish a schedule of parking penalties, also formerly 
under the Municipal Court's jurisdiction. 

Ms. Lori Giorgi of the City Attorney's Office reports that 
the existing schedule of penalties for violation of State 
and local parking laws that the City enforces was set by 
the Municipal Court prior to 1993. Ms. Giorgi advises that 
because the responsibility for setting fines has since 
shifted from the Municipal Court to the DPT, the 
proposed resolution (File 01-1120) would approve an 
official citation penalty schedule set by the Board of 
Supervisors instead of the Municipal Court. The proposed 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

ordinance (File 01-1127) would amend the City's Traffic 
Code to include this official citation penalty schedule. 

01-1120 

Approval of the proposed resolution would (1) approve the 
existing citation penalty schedule for 134 of the 154 
penalties for violation of State and local parking laws, 
and (2) approve an increase for 20 of the 154 penalties, as 
shown in Attachment I provided by the DPT, ranging 
from a 16 percent increase to a 300 percent increase. 
According to Ms. Diana Hammons of the DPT, only these 
20 penalties would increase at this time because they 
have become outdated and no longer serve as deterrents 
to motorists who choose to violate the ordinances and 
resolutions governing parking in the City (see Comment 
No. 2). The remaining 134 of the 154 penalties would not 
change, although such penalties were established prior to 
1993. A list of all 154 penalties is currently on file with 
the Municipal Court, however upon approval of the 
proposed resolution by the Board of Supervisors, a list of 
all 154 penalties will be kept on file with the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

01-1127 

Approval of the proposed ordinance would amend the 
City's Traffic Code to include the schedule of parking 
penalties for violation of State and local parking laws set 
forth in File 01-1120. 

Comments: 1. On May 1, 2001, the Parking and Traffic Commission 

approved a resolution (Resolution No. 141-01) urging the 
Board of Supervisors to adopt the official citation penalty 
schedule set forth in File 01-1120. According to Ms. Julia 
Dawson of the DPT, the new penalty schedule would 
become effective on September 1, 2001. 

2. Under the existing penalty structure, the DPT will 
collect an estimated $67,442,182 in penalties for the 154 
penalties in FY 2000-2001, compared to the $62,009,240 
annually collected in FY 1999-2000. Approval of the new 
schedule of penalties would result in an estimated 
$65,197,703 being collected in FY 2001-2002. According to 
Ms. Dawson, the 3.3 percent decrease in penalties 
estimated at $65,197,703 which are anticipated to be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Augiist 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



collected in FY 2001-2002 compared to FY 2000-2001 
collections of $67,442,182 is due to a one-time revenue 
increase in FY 2000-2001 from DPTs Special Collection 
Program which collected revenues on citations that were 
previously uncollectable. 1 Ms. Dawson states that the 
parking citation data currently maintained by the DPT 
does not indicate the exact amount of revenues collected 
in FY 2000-2001 from the one-time citation collection 
from the Special Collection Program. Ms. Hammons 
advises that of the 20 penalties that would increase upon 
approval by the Board of Supervisors of the proposed 
resolution (File 01-1120), only 12 of these increased 
penalties would have a significant impact on revenues 
collected by the City. These 12 penalties and their 
respective 12 violations are shown in Attachment II, 
provided by the DPT. According to Ms. Hammons, the 
proposed increases to such 12 penalties would result in 
increased annual revenues of $1,947,703 (as amended by 
the Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee- 
see Comment Nos. 5 and 6) over the revenues collected in 
FY 1999-2000. 2 

3. As previously noted, approval of the proposed 
resolution (File 01-1120) would approve (1) the official 
citation penalty schedule of 154 penalties for violation of 
State and local parking laws and (2) the increase of 20 of 
these 154 penalties. If the proposed ordinance (File 01- 
1127) is approved, the Traffic Code Article 3 Sections 32, 
32.1, 32.1.1 through 32.1.11, 32.2, 32.2.1, 32.5, 32.6, 
32.6.1, 32.6.2, 32.6.3, 32.6.5, 32.6.6, 32.6.7, 32.6.8, 32.6.10 
through 32.6.14, 32.6.16, through 32.6.27, 32.20, Article 7 
Section 130, Article 12, Section 210, and Article 16, 
Section 412 would be amended to include the official 
citation penalty schedule set forth in File 01-1120. 

4. According to Ms. Giorgi, each section of the City's 
Traffic Code noted above reflects a range for the penalties 
for the 154 parking violations included in the proposed 



1 Ms. Dawson reports that the DPT was able to collect previously uncollectable penalties and engage 
in the Special Collection Program because the DPT had switched to a new citation processing system 
in November of 1998 that allowed the DPT to, as an example, gam information and collect revenue 
on citations for out-of-state plates. 

2 According to Ms. Hammons, the Department used FY 1999-2000 citation issuance data because, to 
date, citation issuance data for FY 2000-01 is incomplete. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

resolution (File 01-1120). The DPT currently refers to the 
schedule of parking citation penalties set by the 
Municipal Court prior to 1993 for the exact penalty for 
such 154 parking violations. Ms. Giorgi advises that upon 
approval by the Board of Supervisors of the proposed 
ordinance (File 01-1127), the City's Traffic Code would be 
amended to refer to the proposed official parking penalty 
schedule set by the Board of Supervisors (File 01-1120), 
instead of the Municipal Court, for such 154 parking 
violations. 

5. At the July 12, 2001 meeting of the Housing, 
Transportation and Land Use Committee, the Committee 
amended the originally proposed official parking penalty 
schedule for the following four fines: (1) TC27 Special 
Motorcycle Parking Zones increased from a proposed fine 
of $25 to a proposed fine of $33, (2) TC 219 Motorcycle 
Meter Zones increased from a proposed fine of $25 to a 
proposed fine of $33, (3) VC 22500F Parking on the 
Sidewalk changed from a proposed fine of $50 to a 
proposed fine of $50 in FY 2001-2002, $75 in FY 2002- 
2003, and $100 in FY 2003-2004, and (4) TC 315A 
Residential Permit Parking (Overtime) from a proposed 
fine of $50 to remain at its current fine of $33. Because of 
these changes, the net reduction in anticipated revenues 
in FY 2001-2002 would total $403,107, according to Mr. 
Steve Bell of the Department of Parking and Traffic. 

6. Attachments I and II reflect the proposed official 
parking penalty schedule as amended by the Housing, 
Transportation and Land Use Committee at its July 12, 
2001 meeting. 

Recommendation: Approval of this proposed legislation is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



ftxtacnmenu jl 





























































lLT 




























Ul 


0° 




CO 
LU 

z 
o 

N 
CD 

z 






















w io 
CD lu 
z Qi 


QC 

o 
u 

z 

o 


si 
























o < 


h- != 


§ ° 

Q UJ 
























2 2h 

1 ' o 


^1 
























LU UJ LU jv 


LU ° 




co 




















Z Z Z t 
OOOw 
N N N q 


co Q 


Q CO 
CO ~) 






UJ 

z 








00 

LU 












<=> Z 




< 

Q. 
UJ 


O 

N 

z — 




co 

LU 




Z 

o 

N 




Z 
O 








ooo n 


o o 

1- < 


O CD 




_l 




h- 




DC 










D Q Q I- 


LU _l 


z z 




o 




Z> 




LU 










< < < UJ 


S O 


E 51 

a. a. 
O O 

H H 

co co 

Q Q 

LU LU 

H h- 
CD CD 
X X 

o o 


z 
o 

H 
Q. 

DC 
O 
CO 


> 
o 

DC 

o 
o 

5 

< 

O 

UJ 


UJ CQ UJ 

tjZ 

£9 O O 

X O N 
O I D 


z 

LO 

LU 

z 

O 

N 
LU 
h- 
X 
5 


Q 
Z 

CO 

m 
< 

o 

5 


h- 
UJ 

LU 
_l 

o 
> 
a 

CC 

o 
h- 

o 


CO 

LU 

H 

< 

Q. 

CD 

z 

CO 
CO 


1- 
O 

LU 
CO 

en 

LU 
H 

z 
z 

X 
1— 


CO 

< 

5 

CO 
CO 

o 

cc 
o 


Q x 

CO UJ 
Z DC 




g g gs uj> 

ooqQcouj 
a: oe q: 2 n ^ 

_i _i _j > > O 
< <r < > > z 

— — — o o — 

lu uj lu _i _i q; 


LU 


Q. 


DC O 


UJ 


i 


z 




a. Q- a. uj 


LU < 


or cc 


Q 


co 


Q. CO 


cc 


h- 


2 


2 


o 


O LL 




CO CO CO > 


>■ a. 


a. a. 


1- 4J 






























z w 






























111 < 


o? 


S? c£ 


o? 


o? 


5? 


5? 


o? 


o^ 


5§ 


5 s 55 




^ vj jS 5? 


5 s >S 


ss s? 




in 


O 1^- 

O t- 


o 
o 


N 


r>« 




o 
o 


0) 


f*. 


§ N 




ID N ^ ^ 


II 


1 - 


W O 


*~ 


T— T— 


T_ 


1— 


, ~ 


T— 


CO 




v ~ 










' r_ 


D- ? 






























UJ 






























_i <2 






























< < 
OK 


o 


w r^- 


m 


N 


N 


o 


in 


CM 


N 


m n. 




O N Mfl 


in o 


^ w fee 


CN 


CNI CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


h- 


CM 


CM 


CM t- 




CM CM CM CM 


CM i- 


fee 


fee fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


&e fee 




fee fee fee fee 


fee «»e 


I- o 




























5 




z 




























O 
LL 




Q 




























U 




LU 
Q. — 


co 


o o 


O 


o 


o 


CO 


o 
o 


o 


o 


o o 




o o o o 


o m 


re 


o o 


co 


in in 


LO 


m 


m 


CO 


LO 


in 


in in 




in in in in 


in co 




in in 


o"- 

a: 


&e 


fee fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


oe 


fee fee 




fee fee fee fee 


fee fee 


fee fee 


Q. 




























re 




1- 
Z 






















t: 

o 






c 
re 




111 HI 

q: z 


CO 


in co 


LO 


m 


n 


m 


m 


co 


m 


m co 


Q 
Q 


■ o oo co m 


in in 


CO CO 


"> 




CM CM 


CM 


CN 


CN 




CN 


CM 


CM 


CM CO 


. CO CM CM CM 


CM CM 


H 


T CN 


dc u. 


(/> 


fee 


fee fee 


GO- 


oe 


oe 


(A 


oe 


oe 


ee 


fee fee 


3 


fee fee fee fee 


fee fee 


fee fee 


^ 


o 






















CO 






t- 




o 


o 




























O 




2 


o 

< 
















< 


CO 


LL 








c 
o 




HI O 

5 P 


oc5 

> 


1 


HI « 


< 


O 


m 


CD 


o 

o 


o 
o 
in 


o 
o 
in 


O <* 
O -r- 

m m 


0) 

E 
E 


«1 N 

m . n . m . CD 


CD CM 


re 


i- CM 
< < 






t*. 


CM CO 


co 


co 


OT 




CSI 


CM 


CM 


CM CM 


CO CO CO CO 


00 O 




CM CM 


CD 
<*- 


CN 


CO CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CN 


in 


CM 


CN 


CN CN 


CO CO CO CO 


CO CN 


'o 


CO CO 


V) 


re 


u 


o o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


U O 


o 


O O U U 


o a 


re 


O O 




CO 


h- 


1- 1- 


h- 


H 


h- 


h- 


> 


> 


> 


> > 


o 


hHhl- 


h- h- 


LL 


1- 1- 



17 



Attachment II 



o s 
it <s 



h « 



a <" 



to 

e o- 

T3 

£ £ 

n 

S-S" 



_l 






































OJECTED TOTA 
INE INCREASE 
01/02*** 


































to 


CO 


a 


CO 


90 


c 


T 
CN 

a 


co 






co 




tv 






cn 

CO 

eq 


CO 


co 


t^ 


o 


■*r 


CO 




oa 


CO 






CO 




CO 


CO 




05 




eq 


l>-_ 


cc 


to 


CO 


a 


iq 






N-_ 




CN 


CO 




cq 


o> 


N-" 


r~" 


CO 


CM 




co" 


K 


co" 

CN 






cm" 




r-~ 




■* 


Ol" 


o" 
co 


CM 


en 


W 


tO 


to 


to 


to 


tO 






to 




v> 


faO 




to 


S 


CO 

to 


CN 

to 


<o 






































K "■ 






































a. 






































Q . . 






































m LU 






































ECT 
ANC 
02" 


CM 


co 


CO 


■CO 


CN 


CO 






o 




o 






CM 


CM 


CO 


co 
o 




CO 


CO 


-3- 


«« 


r~ 








co 




r» 


h- 




1^- 


co 


cn 


CJ) 




in 


03 


CO 


T 


^r 


1^- 






o_ 




CM 






CO_ 


cq 


in 






■J => ^ 
O to o 


T _ 




r-- 




03 


■<r 






co" 




0>" 


S 




co" 


to" 


■*" 


CO 
CM 




cn 






>ro 




CM 
















CO 




CO 


co 




a: en 






































Q. — 






































LU 






































o " 


co 


CO 


o 


r-~ 


OJ 


o 






co 




CO 






CN 


CO 


•q- 


r^ 




o Z 


n 




CO 


in 


CO 


to 










OT 


CO 




CO 


TT 


N- 






^ < 


r- 


°l 


iq 


a 


03 






rr 




co 


LO 






CO 


o_ 






en z: 

en 3 

co 


cc" 

CN 


to" 


CO 

CM 


co" 

O 


lo" 

CN 


CN 
CO 






CM 




to" 

CN 


en 




io" 

CO 


o" 

CM 


to" 


to 

CO 
*3- 




co 






































Q uj 






































UJ c/3 






































S3 < 






































O uj 

ft * 

O o 


m 


r^ 


r~ 


U3 


r- 


O 






CO 




to 


r- 




O 




r~- 






CJ 


CN 


CN 


CN 




CN 






CM 




CM 


CM 






CM 






to 


tO 


W 


to 


to 


tO 






CO 




oo 


feO 




to 


60 






a: z 






































Q. — 






































a 






































UJ 






































Of 


o 


O 


o 


c 


o 


o 






o 




o 


o 




to 


o 


O 






in 


CO 


in 


Ifl 


Ifl 


CO 






to 




IO 


LO 




CO 


to 


to 






to 


</» 


W 


M 


to 


Vi 






«/» 




tO 


to 




&* 


t/» 


<*> 










































a. 




































t 




































t- 




































* 


z 




































5? 


LU LU 
DS Z 


IT) 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 


O 






to 




to 


CO 




IO 


CO 


co 




■<* 


CN 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 






CN 




CN 


CM 




CM 


TC 


CN 




co 


ce u_ 


to 


t/» 


</> 


to 


to 


t*» 






to 




«/» 


to 




W> 


to 


to 






3 




































o 


O 







































LL 
VI 

B 

o 
o 

_0 

o 


z 
o 

1- 
0. 
01 


z 
o 

N 

Q 


2 ^ 

in -3 

IS I 


CO 

< 

g 
cn 

in 

o 


2£ 

< 

s 

a 


z 
< 

cc 
a 
> 


* UJ 

3 ° 

CC N 

< S 


IU 

h- 

3 
z 

2 

o 


LU 

y 

UJ 

> 


o | 

or cc 

i- i- 

LU CO 
2 Q 
LU O 


111 

Z> 

z 

2 

o 


•- ir 

— UJ H 

1 ^ "> 

> LU ° 

a y 


a 
z 
< 

CO 

cc 

< 


cr 

LU 
LU 

s 
o 

z 


UJ 
CC 

o 

z o 
2 z 

<l 


uj 07 

Q CC 
□ co O 

tu z o 
- — z 
5u? 
1 ? o 


Q tt? 

uj 5 o 

t O Z 
CO — g 

55o 


U 




cc 


to 


uj 


LU < 


3 


5 
2 

a 
o 


2 tL 


3 


^ CO u- 

; i- u. 


U 


2 
K 

< 

0. 


° t 


O a v- 


O 2 K 




o 


CO 


K 


I 2 


o 


z 


o 


CO U- 


o 


X 


>1 

o 

a 


CC CL z 


cc a. z 




» 


LU 
Q 




g 


z 

a 


a 


a. O 

CO -1 


UJ 


z < 

- cc 

H 


LU 

> 


2 D < 

O o * 

u >- 


< 


°- O g 


Ct Q. > 

°o 

to O 




n 

o 



a 
to 






































Z 
LU O 
Q P 

o u 

O LU 
CO 






m 


u. 


























_j 


o 


< 
DO 


o 

co 


a 
a 
in 

CJ 


a 
a 
in 

C j 


Ifl 

CN 


CO 
CO 






CD 

CO 




CD 

CO 


oa 

09 




CM 

O 


< 

CN 


CM 

< 
CN 


< 

o 


73 



m 


CO 


'J 


-j 


CN 


CO 






CO 




co 


co 




CN 


CO 


CO 


H 


3 


U 


O 


O 


o 


u 


CJ 






CJ 




O 


o 




o 


CJ 


CJ 




t7 




!- 


1- 


> 


> 


> 


h- 






h- 




r- 


h- 




h- 


h- 


1— 




< 







g 




CO 

u 

c 






CO 


(l) 




n 


o 




E 


co 




CT 


-i 




( > 




m 


T3 


CO 


a) 


a) 




>> 


CO 


c 

CO 


CO 


CD 



j2 5 



— =S x 



| i § 8 » 
a a 1 g o 

|= 03 n CO 



1= JT £ ° ° 



o co «= £ -t: 



u 


c 


T3 


co 


o 


O 




cn 












CJ 




c 


r 


— 


cn 






CJ 


CD 


to 


ED 

g 


CO 





















JC 




CJ 



I g 



2 B I S? o 



£ E 



g 

2 cd 



2 E 



2^cu 



.5 = .2 



cS ° g 1 "2 * iS 





**- 


CO 


.^ 




r 




u 

o 


o 
> 


CD 
CO 

cn 


03 
CO 

r 


CO 

B 

O 


g 


X 

CD 


55 

CD 

> 

u. 

co 

o 


U. 

o 

CD 

o 

c 

CO 




u 

c 

CD 

c 


o 
CO 

o 

o 

CO 


3 
u 

to 

-CI 


C 
o 

S 

'5 

"co 


co" 
CM 
X 

cn 


3 


CO 


£ 


c_ 




to 


CO 


co 




o 


E 


0) 


<f 


_o 


TO 

CO 


•a 
m 


b 


OJ 


c 


CO 


ra 


CJ 

0J 


u 

CD 




to 


CO 
CO 


O 

r- 



CM 1= 
X CU 

to £ 



H 0- 0- o. E Q. 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 01-1228 

Department: 

Item: 



Contract Extension 
Amount: 



Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Resolution approving a second modification to extend an 
existing contract between the Department of Human 
Services and Addus Healthcare, a private for-profit 
provider, for the provision of In-Home Supportive Services 
for the two-month period from July 1, 2001 through 
August 31, 2001. The existing three-year (36-month) 
contract of $17,197,171 will be increased by $1,360,132, 
for a total contract amount of $18,557,303. 



Not to exceed $1,360,132 



Term of Contract 
Extension: 

Sources of Funds: 



Description: 



July 1, 2001 through August 31, 2001 (Two Months) 

A combination of General Fund monies (22 percent) and 
Federal and State Medicaid Funds (78 percent). The 
sources of funding for the $1,360,132 modification to the 
existing contract, as provided by DHS, are as follows: 

General Fund monies included in DHS's 

FY 2001-2002 budget $ 299,229 

Federal and State Medicaid Funds included 

in DHS's FY 2001-2002 budget 1.060.903 

Total $1,360,132 

In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is an entitlement 
program which provides funding for low-income seniors 
and disabled people to receive non-medical personal care 
and other household assistance in their homes from 
visiting workers. IHSS care can allow seniors and 
disabled persons to remain in their own homes and 
thereby avoid unnecessary and expensive hospitalization 
or institutionalization. 

IHSS services are provided by either independent 
providers or contracted providers. All IHSS services are 
funded by a combination of City General Fund monies 
and State and Federal Medicaid funds. According to Mr. 
Joseph Huang of DHS, since 1994, the contractual IHSS 
services have been divided into two separate contracts, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



one with Addus Healthcare, a private for-profit provider, 
and one with the IHSS Consortium 1 , a nonprofit agency. 
Under this division of contractual services, Addus has 
provided IHSS services that require less intensive 
supervision than the IHSS Consortium. 

In July of 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved two 
contracts for IHSS services, one with Addus and one with 
the IHSS Consortium, for the three-year period from 
August 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, with an option to renew 
for one additional year (Files 98-934 and 98-935). These 
contracts both expired on June 30, 2001. On July 23, 2001 
the Board of Supervisors approved a new intensive 
supervision contract to provide IHSS services with the 
IHSS Consortium for the period from July 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2004 (File 01-1092). However, 
according to Mr. Huang of DHS, a new IHSS contract 
which provides regular supervision IHSS services has not 
yet been awarded because the Request for Proposal (BFP) 
process, which began in February of 2001, is still pending. 

Therefore, DHS is requesting approval of the proposed 
resolution, which would authorize a $1,360,132 contract 
modification to extend the existing regular supervision 
contract with Addus for a period of two months, from July 
1, 2001 through August 31, 2001, bringing the total 
contract amount to $18,557,303. The Human Services 
Commission approved the proposed two-month contract 
extension with Addus Healthcare on June 28, 2001. 

Under a prior modification to the existing contract 
between DHS and Addus, previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in June of 2001, the 36-month 
contract with Addus was increased by $2,308,327, from 
$14,888,844 to $17,197,171 (File 01-1000). The 
$2,308,327 increase in the contract included: (1) an 
increase of $1,929,577 to reflect an increase in the 
average hourly wage to be paid to the Addus IHSS 
contract workers, from $7.29 to $9.00, for the period from 



1 The IHSS Consortium is an association of nonprofit agencies which includes the Independent 
Living Resource Center, Self-Help for the Elderly, Mission Neighborhood Center, Kimochi, Inc., 
Bayview-Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Services Center, Catholic Charities, and Western 
Addition Senior Citizens Service Center. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

October 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000; (2) an increase of 
$378,750, which provided for an increase in the average 
hourly wage of Addus IHSS contract workers from $9.00 
to $9.70, for the period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 
2001. With the inclusion of benefits, training, travel, 
insurance, and administrative costs, as well as worker 
wages, the total hourly rate charged by Addus under the 
prior modification increased by $2.94 or 21.6 percent, 
from $13.62 to $16.56, retroactive to October 1, 1999, and 
by $1.01 or 6.1 percent, from $16.56 to $17.57, retroactive 
to July 1, 2000. 

Under the previously approved 36-month contract with 
Addus, Addus provided 375,000 hours of IHSS services 
per year or 31,250 hours per month. Under this proposed 
second contract modification, Addus would provide 62,500 
additional hours of service, or 31,250 hours per month for 
two months. The total hourly rate to be charged by Addus 
under the modification, which includes benefits, training, 
travel, insurance, and administrative costs, as well as 
worker wages, would increase by $4.19 or 23.8 percent, 
from $17.57 to $21.76, retroactive to July 1, 2001. The 
average hourly wage to be paid to the Addus IHSS 
contract workers under the proposed second contract 
modification would increase by $0.81 or 8.4 percent, from 
$9.70 to $10.51, retroactive to July 1, 2001. These wages 
paid to the workers conform to the Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance, approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in September of 2000, which requires that all 
contracts and contract amendments made after 
September of 2000 include an hourly wage of a minimum 
of $9.00 for contract workers, and that contracts and 
contract amendments effective after September 2001 
include hourly wages of a minimum of $10.00. 

Attachment I, provided by the Department, is a 38-month 
budget for the total $18,557,303 contract, from July 1, 
1998 through August 31, 2001, including the $1,360,132 
proposed modification for two months, July and August of 
2001. 

Comments: 1. The hourly rate charged by Addus under the existing 

36-month $17,197,171 contract increased incrementally 
over the first 36 months from $13.59 to $17.57, but the 
average monthly payment to Addus over the 36-month 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



period was $477,699. Under the proposed $1,360,132 
modification, Addus would charge approximately 
$680,066 per month, an increase of $202,367 or 42.4 
percent over the $477,699 average monthly charge for the 
first 36 months of the contract. 

As noted in Attachment I, under the proposed 
modification, Addus would receive $57,301 in profit over 
the two-month contract extension period, or $28,650 in 
profit per month. This $28,650 in monthly profit 
represents an increase of $27,416 or 2,221.7 percent over 
the $1,234 average monthly profit authorized in the third 
year of the existing 36-month contract. Further, the 
Budget Analyst notes that Addus received total profit of 
$42,948 for the three-year period of FY 1998-1999, FY 
1999-2000, and FY 2000-2001. On an annualized basis, 
total profit of $28,650 per month would amount to 
$343,800. 

The memorandum provided as Attachment II by Mr. 
Huang of DHS explains that the $21.76 hourly rate to be 
charged by Addus under the proposed contract 
modification reflects a negotiated compromise between 
DHS and Addus over the term and hourly rate of the 
proposed extension. The memorandum notes that "for the 
longer extension, the Department will not agree to the 
same high rate and will only accept a rate that is fiscally 
responsible." However, the memorandum does not 
explain why DHS has authorized the significant increase 
in profit for Addus discussed above. 

2. Because the proposed contract modification 
commenced on July 1, 2001, the subject resolution should 
be amended to provide for retroactivity. Mr. Huang 
reports that the Department submitted the proposed 
contract for consideration by the Board of Supervisors in 
late June of 2001. 

3. According to Mr. Huang, the RFP for a new longer 
term regular supervision IHSS contract was issued in 
February of 2001. Attachment III, provided by the 
Department, fists the nine newspapers through which the 
contract was publicized. Mr. Huang reports that two 
service providers submitted proposals: the IHSS 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 






Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Consortium and Addus Healthcare. The IHSS 

Consortium bid on the regular supervision IHSS contract, 
as well as the intensive supervision IHSS contract. 
Addus bid only on the regular supervision contract. In 
April of 2001, the IHSS Consortium, the only bidder for 
the intensive supervision contract, was selected to be the 
service provider for both the intensive supervision 
contract and the regular supervision contract. However, 
the results of the RFP process were contested by Addus, 
as explained in detail in the memorandum provided by 
Mr. Huang of DHS as Attachment IV. This memorandum 
explains in detail the status of the new RFP process being 
undertaken by DHS and justifies the two-month contract 
extension as necessary to "enable the In-Home Supportive 
Services workers to be paid for work performed in July 
and August 2001" and to "demonstrate to Addus 
Healthcare the City's good faith in negotiations." 
According to Mr. Huang's memorandum in Attachment 
rV, DHS will be requesting a further extension to the 
Addus contract, pending the final results of the new RFP. 

4. The proposed resolution incorrectly refers to IHSS 
Consortium in the following phrase: "Whereas, the 
Human Services Commission has recommended approval 
of this contract modification with IHSS Consortium of 
San Francisco..." instead of referring to Addus 
Healthcare. 

Recommendation: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 2, amend the 

proposed resolution as follows: 

(a) on page 1, line 3 in the title, insert "retroactively" 
before "approving' so that the phrase reads 
"Resolution retroactively approving..." 

(b) on page 1, line 21, insert "retroactively" before 
"approves" so that the phrase reads "hereby 
retroactively approves..." 

2. In accordance with Comment No. 4, amend the 
proposed resolution on page 1, line 19, to read: "...contract 
modification with Addus Healthcare..." instead of 
"...contract modification with the IHSS Consortium of San 
Francisco..." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 1, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. Because there is ongoing uncertainty regarding the 
status of a longer term regular supervision In-Home 
Supportive Services contract (see Comment No. 3 above), 
and because the hourly rate under the proposed contract 
modification includes a significant increase in Addus 
Healthcare's profit level (see Comment No. 1 above), 
approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the^Board of Supervisors. 

Harvey M. Rose 




Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



' 1 


A 1 B | C I 


D 


E I 


F 1 


G 


H 


I 


J 


K 


• ' « Document Dale: 6/7/01 

BUDGET MODIFICATION SUMMARY ATTACHMENT I 


2 


3 


4 


5 




Contractor's Name 
ADOUS HEALTHCARE 


Contract Term 
B/1/98 -S/31/01 


5 


7 


Check One) New Renewal 

If modification. Effective Date of Mod. 7/1 AW 


ModHcaflon 


X 






Mooaca don Period 
7/1 AH -8731/01 


8 


No. of Mod. 


3 


9 


Prooram; In-Home Sirooorfjve Services 


CURRENT 
YR1 


CURRENT 
YR2 


CURRENT 
YR3 


CURRENT 
TOTAL 




PROPOSED 
MODIFICATION 




NEW CONTRACT' 
TOTAL 


10 


Term 


8/1/98.- 
6730799 


.7/1/99.- 
6/30/00 


. 7/1/00 -_ 
6/30/01 


8/1/98 -6/30/71 




7/1/01 -S/31/01 




8/1/98-8/31/01 


11 


IHSS Provider Wages 

FuB Time 


S2.S07,S64 


53,231,956 


$3,657,346 


$9,397,168 




$657,086 




$10,054,252 


1? 


13" 


Part Time 


SO 


SO 


$0 


$0 




$0 




SO 


14 


IKSS Provider Employment Taxes 
Social Security (FlCAl 


$225,170 


$297,355 


$336 .255 


$859,780 




$60,488 




$920,263 


15 


16 


Federal Unemplovmt In (FUTA) 


523.652 


$31,096 


$35,279 


$90,027 




$6,326 




$96,352 


i7 


Slate Unemptvmt Ins (SU1) 


S73.912 


597,175 


$109,919 


S281,006 




$19,767 




$300,773 


id 


Stale DlsabJitv Ins IS DO 


SO 


$0 


SO 


$0 




$0 




SO 


IS 


Cftv Payroll Tax 


$44,347 


$58,305 


$66,101 


$168,753 




$11,860 




$180,613 


70 


HSS Provider Worker's Compensation ' 


S310.429 


$397,400 


S4 54,460 


$1,162,289 




$71,163 




$1233,452 


21 


HSS Provider Employment Benefits 
Vacation 


$130,059 


$166,994 


$186,534 


$483,687 




$40,436 




$524,123 


22 


23 


Side Leave 


S103.S71 


$133,094 


S148.747 


S38S.512 




$42053 




S427.S6S 


24 


MoSdav 


$67,752 


S107.926 


S1 24,377 


$300,055 




$18,932 




$318,987 


25 


Health Insurance 


$332,430 


$378,615 


$382,069 


$1,093,114 




$109,180 




$1,202,294 


26 


Dental Insurance 


$67,053 


573,143 


$73,148 


• $213,349 




$16,568 




$229,917 


27 


Pension 


$77,344 


5101,250 


$106,875 


$285,469 




S35.625 




5321.094 


28 


HSS Provider Travel Costs. 
Travel Waqes 


$147,124 


$188,907 


$211,125 


$547,158 




S3o\549 




$585,705 


29 


50 


MHeaqa 


$63,915 


575,180 


575,180 


S219.275 




$17,500 




$236,775 


31 


HSS Provider Orlentation/SklU Dev 
TraWnq Waces 


$45,073 


$58,114 


$65,159 


$168,348 




$8,870 




5177,215 


32 


33 


TraWnq StafT/Consultants 


$2,596 


$2,832 


52,832 


$8,260 




$0 




$8260 


34 


Other Traininq Costs 


$0 


$0 


so 


SO 




$0 




SO 


35 
36 


Administrative Salaries 

Local Administration 


S30,569 


$34,630 


$35,913 


S101J12 




$9,167 




$110,279 


37 


Clerical 


$24,337 


$27,706 


528,754 


$30,857 




$7,627 




$88,484 


38 


IHSS Supervisors 


5178,725 


$234,839 


S245.7O0 


$659,314 




$56,333 




$715,643 


aa 

40 


Salaries lo Ovmers/Officers/Dirs. 


$0 


$0 


SO 


$0 




$0 




$0 


Administrative Taxes 

Social Security fFICAl 


$17,877 


$22,738 


$23,565 


$64,180 




$8,168 




$70,347 


41 


11 


FeCeral Unemolovml Ins (FUTA) 


$1,870 


52,378 


$2,464 


$8,712 




$645 




$7,357 


43 


Stale Unemprvmt Ins (SUI) 


$5,842 


$7,431 


$7,701 


$20,974 




$2,016 




$22,989 


44 


CitvPavTon Tax 


$3,505 


$3,487 


$4,650 


$11,642 




$1,209 




512,651 


45 
46 


Administrative Worker 1 ! Compensation 


S3.061 


$3,894 


$4,035 


$10,990 




$1,058 




512.048 


Administrative Benefits 

Vacation 


Inc In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


$0 




Inc In saC 




SO 


47 
-& 

"ST 


Sick Leave 


Inc In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


$0 




Inc In sal. 




$0 


Hoflday 


kic In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


so 




Inc In sal. 




50 


Heath Insurance 


$27,279 


$29,759 


$29,759 


S86.797 




$7,004 




533.301 


51 
52 
53 

55 

56 
"ST 
"5T 

61 
52 

"^T 
"W 

"57 

"b5" 

m 

.74 
_75 
J5 
_J7 

-11 
JO 
31 


Dental Insurance 


$4,797 


$5,233 


$5,233 


515,263 




$1,063 




516.326 


Administrative Travel 
Travel Waqes 


Inc In sal. 


Inc In sal. 


Inc in sal. 


$0 




Inc In sal. 




$0 


Mileage 


$11,550 


$12,600 


$12,600 


$36,750 




$2,100 




136,850 


Insurance and Bonding 

Liability Insurance 


$14,955 


$22,825 


$25,821 


563.601 




$4,024 




567,625 


Automobile Insurance 


Inc above 


Inc above 


Inc above 


$0 




Inc above 




$0 


Fried ty Bond 


so 


so 


SO 


$0 




Inc above 




$0 


Performance Bond 


$0 


so 


so 


SO 




Inc above 




$0 


Letter of Credft 


Inc in oth. 


Inc In olh. 


Inc In oth. 


SO 




Inc In olh. 




SO 


Office Expenses - - .• — .u* 

Rent ' r "-" 


~ ■'$35,0*7 


$38,200 


$38,200 


5111.417 




$12000 




$123,417 


Mainlenance/Janilonal 


$0 


SO 


$0 


$0 




$0 




$0 


Utffitfes 


SO 


$0 


$0 


$0 




SO 




■ SO 


Eauloment fhewl 


. so 


$0 


$0 


$0 




SO 




50 


Eouioment Maintenance 


$3,300 


$3,600 


53.600 


510,500 




$600 




$11,100 


Eouioment Deprec. 'pn'or ourchase 


SO 


so 


$0 


SO 




SO 




$0 


Accountlnq and Data Processing 


$0 


so 


$0 


SO 




SO 




SO 


Tdeohone 


$14,208 


$15,500 


515.500 


545.208 




S4.000 




S492C.8 


Pcstace 


$5,958 


56,500 


$6,500 


518.953 




S1.333 




$20,291 


Phot ccoovino/P nn li nq 


$6,875 


57.500 


57,500 


$21,875 




$1,250 




523.125 


Surofies 


- S9.S25 


S10.5O0 


510,500 


$30,625 




S6.667 




537.292 


Personnel Advertisinq 


$1,650 


51,800 


51,800 


$5250 




S333 




S6.083 


Other Costs 


S22.917 


525.000 


$25,000 


$72,917 




$22,500 




$95,417 


Profit 


$13,402 


SU.73S 


514,809 


$42948 




$57,301 




$100,249 


Audit Costs 


$5,042 


$5,500 


$5,500 


$16,041 




$833 




$16874 


TOTAL. COSTS 


$4 570 510 


$5,935752 


56,590.609 


$17 197,171 




51,360,132 




$18,557 M3 


Full Time EcufvaJent (FTE) 


















Preoared bv: 








TeteohoneNo_-(559>324-6513 Dale: 6/7/01 




DHS-CO Review Stonature: 











TT 



Addus Healthcare, Inc. 



Appendix B-3, Page 1 



rrom: josepn nuang i o. r\oren isniDasru 



City and County of San Francisco 



Department of Human Services 




ATTACHMENT II 



To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: Joseph Huang, Senior Contracts Manager 

Date: July 25, 2001 

Re: Two-Month Extension for Addus Healthcare, Inc. 



As stated in the earlier memo to the Budget Analyst Office, the Department of Human 
Services had tentatively awarded the new Regular Supervision contract to the In-Home 
Supportive Services Consortium on April 17, 2001, based on the recommendation of 
the review panel for RFP 198. When Addus Healthcare, Inc., the incumbent holder of 
the contract, filed a formal protest of the RFP process, the Department had to provide 
due process to Addus 's protest. When it became apparent that the process would 
extend beyond June 30, 2001 (the expiration date of the current Addus contract), the 
Department entered into negotiations with Addus to extend the contract for two months 
in order to prevent a disruption of services to clients while the process concluded. The 
two main elements subject to negotiation were the length of the extension and the rate 
of the extension. Addus asked for a 12 month extension at the rate proposed by them 
($21.76) while the Department supported a 2 month extension at the current contract 
rate ($17.57). The compromise solution was to have a 2 month extension at the 
$21.76 rate. The Department realizes this rate includes increases in costs not normally 
acceptable to the Department. However, in light of the short time frame and the need 
to reach agreement in order to prevent a disruption in services, the Department decided 
to compromise and cover the increased costs for the limited time period. 

With the Mayor's Office's direction to the Department to re-issue the RFP, the 
Department realizes that the process will extend through either December 31, 2001 or 
June 30, 2002. The Department has now entered into new negotiations with Addus to 
further extend their contract. For the longer extension, the Department will not agree 
to the same high rate and will only accept a rate that is fiscally responsible. 



(415) 557-5000 



P.O. Box 7988 

26 



San Francisco, California 94120 



jty and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services 




ATTACHMENT III 



To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: Joseph Huang, Senior Contracts Manager 

Date: May 31, 2001 

Re: Advertisement for RFP 1 98 



For RFP 198, the Department of Human Services advertised through the Purchasing 
Department in its Bids & Contracts Opportunity Newsletter and on the City and County's 
Bids and Contracts website (http://sunset.ci.sf.ca.us/pbids.nsf) with links from the 
Department of Human Services' website. The Department also advertised through the 
following newspapers: San Francisco Independent, Bay Guardian, Asian Weekly, Bay 
Area Reporter, El Bohemia News, The Sun Reporter, San Francisco Bayview, Bay Area 
Business Woman, and El Mensejero. The Department also sent direct mailings to the 
current contractors, Addus Healthcare (a for-profit) and EHSS Consortium (a not-for- 
profit). 

The following organizations were aware of the RFP, as they provided letters of support to 
the EHSS Consortium's proposal or were included in the proposal. 

Arriba Juntos 

Bayview-Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Services 

Bethany Center 

Consumers in Action for Personal Assistance 

Family Service Agency of San Francisco 

Goldman Institute on Aging 

Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco 

IHSS Public Authority 

Kimochi, Inc. 

Legal Assistance to the Elders, Inc. 

Little Brothers - Friends of the Elderly 

North of Market Senior Services 

Northern California Presbyterian Homes and Services 

On-Lok Senior Center 

Planning for Elders in the Central City 

Project Open Hand 

San Francisco Adult Day Services Network 

Senior Action Network 

Seniors At Home - Jewish Family and Children Services 

Self-Help for the Elderly 

Western Addition Senior Citizen's Senior Center, Inc. 



27 
4 5) 557-5000 P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, California 94120 



Gity and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services 




ATTACHMENT IV 



To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: Joseph Huang, Senior Contracts Manager 

Date: July 24, 2001 

Re: RFP for In-Home Supportive Services with Regular Supervision 



The Department of Human Services issued RFP 198 on February 14, 2001. Proposals 
were due on March 27, 2001. Two proposals were received as of the due date: one 
from Addus Healthcare and one from the In-Home Supportive Services Consortium. 
The review panel that was convened on April 10, 2001 rated the Consortium proposal 
higher so the contract was tentatively awarded to the IHSS Consortium on April 17, 
2001 . Addus Healthcare consequently filed a formal protest of the RFP process. 

To address the issues raised by Addus Healthcare, the Department initially decided to 
convene a separate review panel. The new panel would be convened in late July/early 
August, with the new decision presented to the Human Services Commission, and 
then the Board of Supervisors, in August 2001. The new contract would start on 
September 1, 2001. It was under this scenario that the Department negotiated a two- 
month extension with Addus Healthcare to continue services through August 31, 
2001, in order to prevent a disruption in service to clients. 

In subsequent meetings between the Mayor's Office, Addus Healthcare, City 
Attorneys, and the Department, Addus Healthcare has raised additional issues with 
the RFP process. The Mayor's Office has directed the Department to re-issue the 
RFP. The details of the new RFP process have not yet been determined. The 
Department intends to hold public hearings with the new contract expected to begin 
either January 1, 2002 or July 1, 2002. The Department expects to finish negotiations 
with Addus Healthcare for a further extension of their current contract to ensure 
continuity of services during the new RFP process in the next week or two. The 
Department expects to present the new extension to the Human Services Commission, 
and then to the Board of Supervisors, in late August 2001. 

At this time, the Department requests to proceed with the two-month extension in 
order to enable the In-Home Supportive Services workers to be paid for work 
performed in July and August 2001. Proceeding with the two-month extension will 
also demonstrate to Addus Healthcare the City's good faith in negotiations. 



28 
(415) 557-5000 P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, California 9412 




[All Committees] 

Government Document Section 
City and County of £an Francisco Main Library 

-Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee «««*-«« 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



Wednesday, August 08, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 



010867 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG 2 3 2C01 



The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

[Outreach Advertising] 

Resolution designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco for 

the Chinese community, and designating El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San 

Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2001 

and ending June 30, 2002. (Purchaser) 

5/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/14/01, SUBSTITUTED. Purchasing Department submitted a substitute resolution bearing new title. 

5/14/01, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/30/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michael Ward, Assistant Director of Purchasing, 

Purchasing Department; Carmen Ruiz, owner of El Latino Newspaper; Marvin Ramirez, publisher of EI Reportero; Jose Del Castillo, 

publisher and owner of El Mensajero; Clementina Garcia; America Soler-Everhart; Sylvia Sandoval; Pedro Morales, reporter for El 

Reportero; Julio Ramos; Luis Espinoza, Purchasing Department. 

Continued to 7/1 1/01. 

7/13/01, THE MEETING OF JULY 1 1 WAS CANCELLED. 

7/18/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Jose Del Castillo, publisher of El Mensajero. 
TABLED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011384 [Contracting out Shuttle Bus Services] 

Resolution approving the Controller's certification that shuttle bus services for San Francisco International 
Airport's Long-Term Parking lot, the employee garage and surface Lot DD can practically be performed by 
private contractor at a lower cost than if work were performed by City and County employees. (Airport 
Commission) 

7/25/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 7:27 PM on 8/21/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



August 8, 2001 



011272 [Consultant Contract for Third Street Light Rail Transit Project] 

Resolution approving the award of Municipal Railway Contract No. CS-132, Quality Assurance and 

Construction Management Services for Phase I of the Third St. Light Rail Transit Project, to Sverdrup Civil 

Inc. for an amount not to exceed $16,000,000 and for a term not to exceed five years. (Municipal 

Transportation Agency) 

7/6/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 

7/26/01, REFERRED to Finance Committee. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Luz Cofresi-Howe, MUNI; Stan Jones, Budget Analyst 

Office; John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; Laura Spanjian, MUNI; Jerome Buttrick; Maxwell Myers, L. Myers Company; Richard 

Pooler; Lytton Archer, Volaterrae Imaging; Carrie Little, Research Magazine; David Sternberg; Roger Bazeley, SFPTA; Joe Boss. 

Referred to Finance Committee for fiscal impact, to be heard within 30 days. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ben Leung, Project Manager, Third Street 
Light Rail Transit Project, Municipal Transportation Agency; Carrie Little, Research Magazine; Joe Boss; 
Laura Spanjian, Municipal Transportation Agency; Luz Cofresi-Howe, Municipal Transportation Agency. 
Amended on page 1, line 6, after "years, " by adding "placing $12,381,055 on reserve. " Further amended on 
page 2 by adding a Further Resolved clause placing funds in the amount of $12,381,055 on reserve. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving the award of Municipal Railway Contract No. CS-132, Quality Assurance and 
Construction Management Services for Phase I of the Third St. Light Rail Transit Project, to Sverdrup Civil 
Inc. for an amount not to exceed $16,000,000 and for a term not to exceed five years; placing $12,381,055 on 
reserve. (Municipal Transportation Agency) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011009 [Booz-AHen Hamilton Contract] 

Resolution approving the incentive fee amount of $409,901 for the Booz-Allen & Hamilton contract (CS-128) 
for Muni Metro service improvements for payment of incentive fees under San Francisco Municipal Railway 
Contract No. CS-128 with Booz Allen & Hamilton and authorizing the release of $239,126 currently held in 
reserve. (Municipal Transportation Agency) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

5/29/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

7/18/01 , CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Vince 

Harris, Deputy General Manager, Municipal Transportation Agency; Mike McDonald, Booz, Allen & 

Hamilton; Laura Spanjian, Municipal Transportation Agency. 

Amended on page I, line 3, and on page 2, line 6, by replacing "$409,901 " with "$318,058.00. " Further 

amended on page 1, line 6, and on page 2, line 7, by replacing "$239, 126" with "$147,283. " Further 

amended on page 1, line 24, by adding "WHEREAS, Booz, Allen & Hamilton's efforts resulted in most of the 

performance improvement goals being met. " 

AMENDED. 

Resolution approving the incentive fee amount of $318,058 for the Booz-Allen & Hamilton contract (CS-128) 

for Muni Metro service improvements for payment of incentive fees under San Francisco Municipal Railway 

Contract No. CS-128 with Booz Allen & Hamilton and authorizing the release of $147,283 currently held in 

reserve. (Municipal Transportation Agency) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 7:27 PM on 8121101 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes August 8, 2001 



011431 [State Grant - Department of the Environment] 
Mayor 

Resolution authorizing the Department of the Environment to expend a grant in the amount of $7,800,000 from 
the California Public Utilities Commission for a small business lighting retrofit program. (Mayor) 
8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Mark Westlund, Department of the 
Environment. 

Amended on page 1, line 4, by adding "placing $7,258,920 on reserve. " Further amended by adding a 
Further Resolved clause to place $7,258,920 on reserve; and adding a Further Resolved clause urging the 
Controller to designate new positions as grant-funded positions. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the Department of the Environment to expend a grant in the amount of $7,800,000 from 
the California Public Utilities Commission for a small business lighting retrofit program; placing $7,258,920 on 
reserve. (Mayor) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 7:27 P.\f on 8/21/01 



.26 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



ofsanfranci&QCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG - 7 2001 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



August 2, 2001 



TO: 



Finance Committee 



FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-0867 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of July 18, 
2001. The Purchasing Division advises that an Amendment of the Whole to 
the original proposed resolution has been submitted to the Finance 
Committee to designate a total of 13 newspapers as outreach advertising 
newspapers instead of two newspapers included in the original proposed 
resolution. This report is based on the Amendment of the Whole. 



Department: 
Items: 



Department of Administrative Services, Office of Contract 
Administration, Purchasing Division 

Resolution designating El Mensajero, El Latino and El 
Reportero to be outreach newspapers for the City's 
Hispanic/Latino community; designating the China Press, 
the Chinese Times and the Asian Week to be outreach 
newspapers for the City's Chinese community; 
designating the San Francisco Bay View to be the 
outreach newspaper for the City's African American 
community; designating the San Francisco Spectrum, the 
Bay Area Reporter and the San Francisco Bay Times to be 
outreach newspapers for the City's Gay/ 
Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community; designating 
Mo Magazine to be the outreach newspaper for the City's 
Southeast Asian community; designating the Russian Life 
to be the outreach newspaper for the City's Russian 
community; and designating the Hokubei Mainichi to be 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

the outreach newspaper for the 
community, for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 



Description: 



Comments: 



City's Japanese 



Proposition J, which was approved by San Francisco 
voters in November of 1994, provided, in part, for an 
Outreach Advertising Fund to be established for the 
purpose of the City placing "outreach advertising" or 
weekly notices of items pertaining to governmental 
operations in periodicals selected to reflect the diversity in 
race and sexual orientation of the population of the City. 
Outreach advertisements include, but are not limited to, 
information about issues that are being reviewed by the 
Board of Supervisors and that directly affect the public. 
Pursuant to Proposition J and in accordance with Section 
2.81-2(a) of the Administrative Code, the City is required 
to withhold 10 percent of the annual amounts paid for the 
City's Type 1 and Type 2 official advertising and to 
deposit these monies into the Outreach Advertising Fund. 

1. Since the passage of Proposition J, approved by the 
voters in November of 1994, bid prices are only one of 
several factors evaluated and considered when 
determining the designated outreach newspapers. Other 
factors include (a) the size of the newspaper's circulation 
area, (b) the newspaper's cost to the public, (c) ownership 
of the newspaper by a minority-owned, women-owned, or 
locally-owned business, (d) whether the newspaper is 
printed in the language of the outreach community, and 
(e) the newspaper's compliance with all contracting 
requirements under the City's Charter and the 
Administrative Code, according to Luis Espinoza of the 
Purchasing Division. Proposition J requires the 
Purchasing Division to recommend to the Board of 
Supervisors the newspapers with the highest total point 
scores in each outreach community. 

2. According to Mr. Espinoza, the Purchasing Division 
recommends that the Board of Supervisors designate the 
China Press and El Mensajero to provide outreach 
advertising for FY 2001-2002. The China Press received 
the highest score of the three responsive bids from 
newspapers seeking to provide outreach advertising to the 
Chinese community. El Mensajero was the only 
responsive bidder of the three bids from newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising to the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Hispanic/Latino community. In addition to recommending 
the China Press and El Mensajero, the Purchasing 
Division suggests that the Board of Supervisors "might 
want to authorize additional outreach advertising" (see 
Attachment I, provided by the Purchasing Division). The 
Purchasing Division suggests that such additional 
outreach advertising could be achieved by designating the 
11 other newspapers that submitted bids to the 
Purchasing Division to provide outreach advertising for 
FY 2001-2002. Attachment II, provided by the Purchasing 
Division, contains bid data and point calculation 
information for the 2 newspapers which tho Purchasing 
Division recommends be designated to provide outreach 
advertising and the 11 other newspapers which the 
Purchasing Division suggests could be designated by the 
Board of Supervisors to provide outreach advertising for 
FY 2001-2002. 

3. As noted in Attachment II, 4 of the 13 newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising submitted bids 
that were considered by the Purchasing Division to be 
responsive. According to Mr. Espinoza, El Mensajero, 
serving the Hispanic community, and the China Press, 
the Chinese Times, and the Asian Week, all serving the 
Chinese community, fully comply with all City contracting 
requirements under the Charter and the Administrative 
Code and qualify with their responsive bids to be 
designated to provide for the City's outreach advertising. 

4. As noted in Attachment II, 9 of the 13 newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising submitted bids 
that were considered to be non-responsive by the 
Purchasing Division. According to Mr. Espinoza, these 9 
newspapers do not qualify to be designated to provide 
outreach advertising for the following reasons: (a) 
Hokubei Mainichi and Mo Magazine do not comply with 
the requirements of Chapter 12B, pertaining to Equal 
Benefits requirements of the Administrative Code, and 
Russian Life does not comply with the requirements of 
Chapters 12B and 12D, pertaining to the 
Minority/Women/Local Business Enterprise Utilization 
requirements of the Administrative Code, (b) the San 
Francisco Bay View, the Bay Area Reporter and the San 
Francisco Bay Times are not printed in San Francisco, as 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

required by Administrative Code, Article IX, Section 2.80- 
1, (c) El Latino, the San Francisco Spectrum and the San 
Francisco Bay Times are not published weekly, as 
required by Administrative Code, Article IX, Section 2.80- 
1, and (d) El Reportero, the San Francisco Spectrum and 
Hokubei Mainicbi submitted their bids late. 

5. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's 
Office, the Board of Supervisors is authorized to and has 
previously designated newspapers to provide outreach 
advertising even though such newspapers do not comply 
with all contracting requirements under the City's 
Charter and the Administrative Code. 

6. The following seven newspapers were designated as 
outreach advertising newspapers for FY 2000-2001: El 
Reportero and El Latino for the Hispanic/Latino 
community; the Chinese Times and Asian Week for the 
Chinese community; the San Francisco Bay View for the 
African American community; and the San Francisco 
Spectrum and the San Francisco Bay Times for the 
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender community. 

7. At the meeting of May 30, 2001 the Finance 
Committee requested the Purchasing Division to provide 
additional information regarding the selection of the 
outreach advertising newspapers, including the estimated 
cost if other newspapers, in addition to the two 
newspapers recommended by the Purchasing Division, 
were designated to provide outreach advertising. As 
stated in the attached letter dated August 1, 2001 from 
Ms. Judith Blackwell of the Purchasing Division to the 
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment I), the 
maximum estimated cost of outreach advertising for 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be $206,067 if the Board of 
Supervisors were to designate all 13 newspapers which 
submitted bids to provide outreach advertising. 
Attachment III, provided by the Purchasing Division, 
includes a suggested budget for $206,067 for the 13 
newpapers which submitted bids. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



City and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 




Attachmenti 
Pa°;e 1 of 3 

Purchasing Department 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director 



August 1,2001 



To: 



Through: 



From: 



Subject: 



Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director of Purchasing 
Purchasing Department 

Michael D. Ward 

Assistant Director of Purchasing 

Purchasing Department 

Designating Official and Outreach Newspapers for FY 2001-2002 



The Purchasing Division is writing this letter in response to inquiries from members of the Finance Committee with 
regards to the designation of newspapers for official and outreach advertising services for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Official Advertising - Type 1 Consecutive Day 

Purchasing solicited but did not receive bids for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising. However, the San Francisco 
Chronicle offered its services to the City at a bulk contract rate of S8.42 per line. 

The Chronicle meets the Administrative Code requirements for an official newspaper, including circulation of 
50,000 per week, consecutive day publication and is printed in the City. However, the Chronicle is not 
compliant with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

A sole source contract with the Chronicle is a viable option because this is an instance when no bids were 
received, there are no qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 12B and the contract is essential 
to the City and its residents. With regards to Chapter 12B, the Purchasing Division will request a waiver from 
the Human Rights Commission. 

The following is the estimated advertising costs for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising for FY2000-01 and 
FY2001-2002. 

Chronicle 
Examiner Offer 

FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2 002 

Cost Per Line 
Estimated annual cost: 
Annual Cost Increase: 
Percent Increase: 



S2.46 


S8.42 


$38,890 


5133,114 




$ 94,224 




243% 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-6717 San Francisco CA 94102^*685 

Home Page: www.ci.sf.ca.us/purchase/ Recycled paper E-mail: Purchasing@ci.sf.ca.us 



Attachment I 
Paee 2 o± 3 



Page 2 

The contract rate of S2.46 per line in FY 2000-2001 was based on the Examiner circulation of 108,896, according 
to the Audit Report of September 30, 1999. The circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle for the 
period ending March 31, 2001 are All Day 527,466 and Sunday 540,074. 

The Chronicle's offer of S8.42 per line is a considerable saving off the open non-contract rate of SI 6.33 per line. 
rate of S8.42 per line is the equivalent of a bulk contract rate. 

It should be noted that the San Francisco Examiner also expressed interest in providing its services to the City. 
However, the Examiner is not printed in the city as required by Article TX of the Administrative Code and has nc 
intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with the requirements 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit A, is the draft of a resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division to negotiate 
sole source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Outreach Advertising 

The Purchasing Division solicited bids for outreach advertising and received only four responsive bids - one froi t 
Hispanic community and three from the Chinese community. 

Given the number of responsive bids received, only two communities mandated by Proposition J would have 
outreach advertising coverage in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In addition, non-Prop. J communities -requested by th 
Board in Resolution No. 841-00, passed October 2, 2000- would not have outreach advertising coverage. These -e 
the Russian, Southeast Asian, Korean and Filipino communities. 

Given that the newspapers submitting responsive bids do not adequately serve all neighborhoods, the Board mig 
want to authorize additional outreach advertising. As proposed, the maximum estimated cost of cost outreach 
advertising for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be $206,067. This amount depends on the number of outreach 
newspapers that will be authorized by the Board. The total estimated amount that will be available in the Outre; h 
Advertising Fund in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is $241,392. Should the Board elect to authorize the proposed 
additional advertising, community coverage would be as follows: 



Community Outreach Newspaper 

Hispanic/Latino: El Mensajero 

El Latino 
El Reportero 

Chinese China Press 

Chinese Times 
AsianWeek 

African American San Francisco Bay View 

Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender Spectrum 

Bay Area Reporter 
S.F. Bay Times 

Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Page 3 






Attachment I 
Page !3 ot !3 



Community Outreach Newspaper 

Russian Russian Life 

Southeast Asian Mo Magazine 

* Japanese Hokubei Mainichi 

* Not requested by the Board in Resolution No. 841-00. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit B is the draft of a resolution designating outreach advertising newspapers and 
authorizing the Purchasing Division to execute contracts with the designated periodicals. The Purchasing Division 
requests that this item be treated as an Amendment of the Whole and calendared for the Finance Committee meeting 
of August 8, 2001. 

On file, is a resolution (File No. 01-0867) designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Chinese community, and El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
2002. On 05/30/01, the Finance Committee continued this item. And on 07/18/01, the Committee again continued 
the item, to the Call of the Chair. 

The Purchasing Division's contact persons for File No. 01-0867 and the proposed Amendment of the Whole, and 
official advertising resolution are: 

Mike Ward 554-6740 

Luis Espinoza 554-6736 

Please, advise if the Board needs additional information before the Finance Committee or Full Board meeting. 
The Purchasing Division looks forward to reviewing this matter with the Board. 

Exhibits: 

A. Resolution - Official Advertising 

B. Resolution - Outreach Advertising 

cc Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



Exhibit A 

Resolution 

7 



Attachment: ll 
Page 1 of 2 



! ! 
1 1 i ! 


1 

1 
1" 

i 

! 


sgenaer 
SF Bay Times 
2.40 




1 j 1 I | j 1 i 

J i ! 

«; -mi ; ; ,cm|o|cm 

"INN! 

t ! ! 1 ! I 1 1 1 


1 

i 
i 


ol IO 

1 




1 


j ii ji y§! j 

ISiUii ilili ! pi i 
: z ioiS.! !"lo 1 
! ! ; .:=i ; i j i i 1 


1 






El Icol i 

2 !S 

col i qJ 
31 ' co| ' 

X! ICC 1 

?i is 

si |<' 

rci Ira! 


o 


o 
o 

2 


Mi 

IOI ! ! !CMlO|OI lOl 'Ol 1 

!HI>II > 

! ! i ! i 1 


| \M i U 

o il!- 5 ! 1 3 

" i lifi ! il! 

! 1 1 ! 1 1 I 


D 
ifl 

12 

ci 

EH 

.C 

U 


II HI 






1 1 

I 1 




il J 

IS ill 

H il 
i i °-\ 

10 


a 
o 




o 


H 


1 




1 o 

1 




o 




1 


1 i 
i 

! 1 
ol 
°c 


>!Oi 

IS 

/j a 

i^i- 1 


>J i 

5 i 

e! 1.9 

c io. 
5 °l 

h ! 


: 
o| 

CD 

ci 






^ 




CJ)" 


i 












1 

1 

J 


J 

ra 
u 

s 

5 




I 

CD 




o 
o 

IT! 




o 
o 
o 


1 


1 

i 

If) 




1 

i 

1 
1 


CM 


CM 






o 




o 

CO 






o 
n 






CD 

_> 

C 

o 
a, 

c 

o 
Z 


to 

_c 

s 

Q. 
O 

c 














>- 


o 
o 

CO 


















Ol 
CD 

c 
< 








a 

CO 




IO 








- 


cm 


CM 




o 




o 






ID 

CD 
CO 






e 
o 
a 






Is 

11 

"a 

E 

1 o 

jo 


a 

o3 

CD 

ci 
ro 

CJ 






>. 


CO 

in 






c 

« 

a 
ra 

> 

UJ 

— 
in 


ST 
m 

d 

o 
<r> 

en" 
O 
PI 

6 

z 

"ra 
O 

a 

o 

a. 

"u 

ro 

e 
o 
U 

a. 

in 

ra 


in 
o 
n 
in 

CI 

o" 

■z. 

"ro 
in 
o 
D. 

o 
CL 

"o 

n 

c 

o 
U 


a 

> 

■a 
o 

TO 
01 

3 
O 




01 

o 

-£ 
o 




E 

H 

a 
ca 

(J 




O 
O 

cri 




O 

o 
ri 




o 








rsj 


CM 


O 




m 




o 






O 

to 

1^-' 

CM 






> 

e 
o 

a 

a 






| ^ 
1 5 

i 


Q 

CD 

ci 
O 






i 


a> 




S 








ct 

C 

-CI 

o 




o 

t' 




o 

o 

d 




o 








O 


CM 


o 




in 




o 






O 

m 






1 

c 
o 

a 
cr 






\ s \o 

— ^ 

1 O- • 

E|& 

!<S|S 












E 
E 
o 

*c 

Q. 

I 
CD 








o 
c 

CO 

2 




o 




o 
o 
o 




in 








rvj 


CM 


o 




in 




o 






a 

PS 






c 
o 








do 

.21^ 
"5. . 

E J 

u u 








CO 

Id 

5 




T3 

la 

O) 

_c 
c 

o 

o. 

1 5 

o> 

1 <u 

|l 








| 




ra 
& 


o 

Li 

I ro 

ILU 

1 




o 
pi 




o 

CO 




m 








N 


1 


CM 




m 




ri 






en 
PI 






_> 

c 
c^ 

c 


2 


CO 

I 
2 

3 

a 






.lo 

sis 

C 1 CL 

oio 






s 

> 












lei 

Ol 

1 a.] 

icj 


o 

G 

tr 




o 




IO 








CM 


CM 






in 




rO 




1 r«» 

Is 






r¥r i 
5 S 
i|s 

?|5II 

II il 


i=i° 

l*iS 

; o.' - 

i Oi Jf 

1 ! u l" 




l-ii 


1 


i"o 

! xi 




















! 

s 

X 
B, 
C 

e 

■s 

— 




1 

lc 




1 

II 

u 

c_ 

i 

•o 

z 




lip 

1 o ■ 

t S1-S 

3 5 
3\6 


CD 

a 

'O 

1 
: c 

; 6 
: r 

c 


p 

o 

5 


"0 

J 

i 

a 
5 




c 
c 

i Z 

3 
i^ 

B 
= 
a 
C 

E 

o 

u 




O 
CM 

ci 

u 

UJ 

1 






UJ 

IS 

o 

ICJ 

en 
»- 

s 

o 

CL 
< 

6 






1 

a 

l"D 

5 


i 

i 
1 




1 










IO 

llis 

IS 1 
>-ll 

i s 

ol g 

^luj 

13 
il 

elm 

Ol 




1 © 

■— 
i c 
I S 
1 & 

i ^ 

c 

i o 
I c 

il 

re 

CD 
C 
1 

1. 



O 
1-1 







Attachme nt II 
Vage 2 o£ 2 ~ 



Attachment III 





Outreach Advertising Services 


Estimated Cost 


Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 




I 




Hispanic 




El Reportero $28,814 




El Latino $13,866! 


El Mensajero $33,387 










Chinese 






China Press 




$16,943) 


AsianWeek 


i $28,672! 


Chinese Times $7,292; 




! 




Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexTTransgender 






Spectrum $9,552 




Bay Reporter $10,263 




S.F. Bay Times $24,263 






i 




African American 








San Francisco Bay View 


$7,015 










Vietnamese 




Mo Magazine $3,744 








Russian 




Russian Life $3,536 








Japanese 


Hokubei Mainichi $18,7201 






Total All Communities $206,067 






i 






i 


; i 


Estimate based on estimated number for FY2001-02 multiplied by the cost per line in bid for FY2001-02 



Source: Purchasine Division 



10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 01-1384 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Description: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving the Controller's certification that 
shuttle bus services for (a) the San Francisco 
International Airport's Long-Term Parking lot, (b) the 
employee garage, and (c) surface Lot DD can continue to 
be practically performed by a private contractor at a lower 
cost than if such work were performed by City and County 
employees. 



Shuttle Bus Services at San Francisco International 
Airport (SFO). 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services which can be 
performed by City employees if the Controller certifies, 
and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that such services 
can in fact be performed by private firms at a lower cost 
than similar work services performed by City employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for the 
Airport shuttle bus services for FY 2001-2002 would 
result in estimated savings as follows: 



Lowest 
Salary 
City-Operated Service Costs Step 



Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 



$3,241,293 

967.763 

$4,209,056 



Highest 

Salary 

Step 

$4,486,833 

1.160.562 

$5,647,395 



Estimated Total Contract 

Cost 4.297.608 



Estimated Savings 



($88.552) 



4.297,608 
$1.349.787 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. Shuttle bus services consist of providing free ground 

transportation to airline passengers between the 
terminals and long-term parking lot (Lot D), and to 
Airline and Airport employees between the terminals and 
the Airport's employee parking garage and employee 
parking lot (Lot DD). 

2. Shuttle bus services for San Francisco International 
Airport were first certified as required by Charter Section 
10.104 in FY 1974-75 and have been contracted out 
continuously since then. 

3. According to Mr. Daniel Pino of the Airport, the 
Airport awarded a ten-year contract for the operation of 
shuttle bus services to SFO Shuttle Bus Company, 
effective January 1, 1998. The proposed resolution would 
approve the Controller's certification for the fourth full 
fiscal year of the ten-year contract, from July 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2002. 

4. The Budget Analyst notes that the Controller has 
determined that the Contractual Services Cost would be 
$1,349,787 less costly to perform when compared to the 
City employees at the highest salary step, but would be 
$88,552 more expensive when compared to the City's 
lowest salary step employees, as shown above. According 
to Mr. Joe Matranga of the Controller's Office, the 
estimate of City-Operated Service Costs at the lowest 
salary step of $4,209,056 was calculated using a new 
trainee rate for Transit Operators for six months 
combined with the rate for a first salary step Transit 
Operator for six months. Mr. Matranga estimates that 
the actual cost of service if performed by City employees 
would be closer to the estimate of City-Operated Service 
Costs at the highest salary step of $5,647,395 because it 
would not be feasible to hire all Transit Operators for the 
shuttle bus service at the lower trainee rate. Therefore, 
Mr. Matranga advises that the Controller's Office has 
certified that the proposed Contractual Services Cost is 
less costly than if similar work were performed by City 
and County employees. 

5. The Contractual Service Cost used for the purpose of 
this analysis is based on the SFO Shuttle Bus Company's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



proposed contract for FY 2001-2002 to provide the shuttle 
bus service at the Airport, according to Mr. Pino. 

6. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's response is attached to this report. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Attachment 



CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION 1) QUESTIONNAIRE 

Department Airport Commission 

Contract Services: Airport Shuttle Bus Services 

Contract Period: July 1, 2001 to ]une 30, 2002 

1 ) Who performed the activity /service prior to contracting out? 

With construction of the Remote Public Parking Facility in 1 975, shuttle bus service was 
initiated by contract. Prior to 1 975, the area was utilized as a small lot for SF1A employee 
parking. An employee van service was provided by Airport Parking Management (APM). 

2) How many Gry employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None (See#l) 

3) Explain rhe disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A(See#l) 

4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 
N/A (See#1) 

5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an ongoing 
request for contracting out? 

Since 1975. The current contract commenced on January 1, 1 998 for a 10-year period with 
up to five additional one-year options. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification: Has it been certified for each 
subsequent year? 

1 974-1 975. Yes, it has been certified each year since. 

7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

Although this contract was not awarded to a MBE/WBE firm in 1996, it must adhere to the 
City's non-discrimination ordinance contained in Chapters 1 2B K 1 2C of the Gt/s 
Administrative Code. This contract also contains MBE/WBE goals, which the Contractor must 
meet. 

8) Does the proposed contract require that the contractor provide health insurance for its 
employees? Even if not required, are health benefits provided? 

The contract does not require health insurance. However, the contractor provides health 
insurance for its employees per a labor agreement. 

9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same 
benefits provided to employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed 
contractor comply with the Domestic Partners ordinance? 

The contractor provides benefits to spouses and domestic partners. 




Department Representative: 

JukT Briscoe, Deputy Airport Director - Operations 

Telephone Number: (650) 821-5010 

H:DPino/WPDOCs/05033 A9.DP 1 



14 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 01-1272 

Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee by the Housing, 
Transportation and Land Use Committee at its meeting of July 26, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Contract Term: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) 

Resolution approving an award of a Municipal Railway 
consulting contract for Quality Assurance and 
Construction Management Services for Phase I of the 
Third Street Light Rail Transit Project, to Sverdrup Civil, 
Inc. for an amount not to exceed $16,000,000 and for a 
term not to exceed 5 years. 

Not to exceed $16,000,000. 

Not to exceed five years from the effective date of the 
subject contract (see Comment 3). 

Proposition B Sales Tax Revenue administered by the San 
Francisco Transportation Authority and budgeted in the 
MTA Capital Budget. 

On July 3, 2001 the Municipal Transportation Agency 
Board of Directors awarded a consulting contract through 
a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to Sverdrup Civil 
Incorporated (Sverdrup) for the Third Street Light Rail 
Transit Project (Third Street Project), Phase I, for an 
amount not to exceed $16,000,000 and for a term not to 
exceed five years, subject to Board of Supervisors and 
Civil Service Commission approval. According to Mr. Ben 
Leung from MTA, no work on the proposed contract has 
begun and no costs have been incurred. The Third Street 
Project consists of a new 7.1-mile light rail line, to be 
constructed in two phases, and a new light rail 
maintenance, operations and storage facility, Muni Metro 
East Facility (MME), to be located on Illinois Street 
between 25 th Street and Cesar Chavez Street. Phase I of 
the Third Street Project consists of a 5.4 mile extension of 
the Muni light rail system beginning at the Caltrain 
station at 4 th and King Streets, and running south along 
4 th Street, Owens Street, Third Street, and Bayshore 
Boulevard to a terminal adjacent to the Caltrain 
Bayshore Station near Bayshore Boulevard east of 
Sunnydale Avenue. MTA would manage construction of 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

the Project, and MTA and the Department of Public 
Works (DPW) would provide construction management 
staff and services. In addition to in-house construction 
management provided by MTA and DPW, under the 
terms of the proposed consulting contract, Sverdrup 
would provide quality assurance and additional 
construction management services for the Third Street 
Project (See Comment 1). 

On Page 1 of Attachment I, Mr. Leung states, "Having 
looked within the City for available and qualified CM 
[construction management] personnel and for services to 
support the Project, Muni determined that supplemental 
consultant personnel and services would be needed where 
the City either lacks available personnel or expertise, or 
in case when DPW could not provide timely surveying and 
testing services." 

Mr. Leung further states, "Instead of hiring consultant 
CM services, Muni could hire additional in-house 
personnel but found it problematic for the following 



1. The duration for the Project is relatively short. The 
Project is essentially a spike in our normal 
construction workload. Hiring additional Muni 
staff for short durations and then letting them go 
later would be difficult because: 

a) There will be few applicants interested in the 
positions. 

b) Short-term employees will feel less committed to 
their jobs. 

c) It will be difficult to retain temporary employees 
toward the end of the Project because they will 
seek employment elsewhere before they are let 
go- 

d) It is also difficult to retain temporary employees 
because they will most likely quit as soon as 
they find more stable employment. 

e) Letting staff go is bad for morale. 

2. The engineering labor market is very tight right 
now and is expected to remain this way in the next 
few years. It would be difficult for us to hire 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

qualified short-term CM employees to fill these 
temporary vacant positions. 

3. For certain positions such as estimating, 
scheduling, Project Controls Manager and Resident 
Engineer for the vehicle maintenance and storage 
facility, the City's salary structure would not be 
competitive with prevailing market conditions in 
order to attract qualified individuals to these 
positions. 

4. Certain CM services are specialty services such as 
weld testing and utility locating services which 
require special equipment and which services are 
not needed on a regular full-time basis. These 
services should be provided by consultants. 

5. Under Federal Transit Administration guidelines, 
independent quality assurance (QA) is required for 
construction projects; therefore, Muni will need to 
obtain independent consultant support to provide 
QA services." 

Mr. Leung also states, "Muni concluded that 
supplemental QA and CM services would be needed to 
support the Project. The consultant personnel would be 
employed on an as-needed basis when it is determined by 
Muni at the actual time of need that City staff could not 
fill the vacancies." 

Page 6 of Attachment I, lists the Scope of Quality 
Assurance (QA) and Construction Management (CM) 
Consulting Services to be provided by Sverdrup and its 
subcontractors under the proposed contract. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize MTA 
to enter into the subject contract (Contract No. CS-132) 
with Sverdrup, for an amount not to exceed $16,000,000 
and a term not to exceed five years. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: The proposed summary budget for FY 2001-2002, for a 

total contract amount in FY 2001-2002 of $3,618,945, is as 
follows: 



Start-up costs, including equipment purchase 


$414,372 


Outreach 


44,080 


Technical Services 


303,333 


Labor, including 7 percent profit 


2,857,160 


Total 


$3,618,945 



Attachment II, provided by MTA, provides additional 
budget details for each of the five years of the proposed 
contract, totaling $16,000,000. 

Comments: 1. As previously noted, the proposed contract provides 

that Sverdrup would provide quality assurance and 
construction management services. In addition to 
Sverdrup serving as the prime contractor, the proposed 
contract includes 10 subcontractors for a total of 11 firms 
providing services under the contract. Attachment III, 
provided by MTA, lists the prime contractor, Sverdrup, 
the names of the subcontractors, the total estimated 
amounts to be allocated to Sverdrup and to each 
subcontractor, the tasks to be undertaken by Sverdrup 
and each subcontractor and the related hourly rates. 
According to Mr. Leung, depending on need, additional 
subcontractors might be utilized but in no event would 
the proposed contract exceed $16,000,000. 

2. As shown in Attachment I, the MTA received seven 
proposals. Attachment I also describes the process of 
selecting the consultant. 

3. Mr. Leung advises that, as of the writing of this report, 
Muni anticipates completing Phase I of the Third Street 
Project within 4 years of approval of the subject contract 
even though the terms of the subject contract permit up to 
five years to complete Phase I. 

4. Payment for services provided under the subject 
contract will be on a reimbursement basis. Therefore, 
Sverdrup must provide to MTA all invoices, in a form 
acceptable to the Controller, in order to be reimbursed for 
such expenditures on Phase I of the Third Street Project. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



5. Mr. Leung advises that total estimated Third Street 
Project costs, including the subject $16,000,000 for the 
construction management contract with Sverdrup, are 
$519,000,000, to be funded by San Francisco 
Transportation Authority ($403,000,000), and State and 
Federal monies ($116,000,000). 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 6 

ftUG-01-2031 20=13 P-07 

MUNI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION • THIRD ST. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT 

1145 Market St., 5th Fl. • San Francisco, CA M103-1545 • Fax:(415)554-3176 



MEMORANDUM 

August 1, 2001 

To: Maureen Singleton, 

Board of Supervisor - Budget Analyst Office 

From: Ben Leung /4^£_ 

Project Manager 

Subject: QA & CM Consultant Contract CS-132 

Consultant Procurement Information 



Project Description 

Phase I of the Third Street Light Rail Transit Project (Project) consists of 5.4 miles of light 
rail extension from 4 th and King to Bayshore and Sunnydale. As part of this Project, a light 
rail vehicle maintenance and storage facility will be built at Illinois and 25 th Streets, The 
construction cost for Phase I of this Project is estimated at $300 million. There will be 10 
construction contracts and 2 procurement contracts, with construction anticipated to start in 
December of 2001 and to complete in 2005. 

Reasons for Procuring Consultant Support 

In order to manage and administer all these contracts, Muni put together a construction 
management (CM) organization chart as shown in Attachments A. Muni then assessed the 
available, qualified Muni staff whom could fill some of these positions. Muni also 
consulted the CM divisions of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Utilities 
Engineering Bureau (UEB) to inquire about CM staffing and service support. DPW 
responded that due to their other planned projects, they could provide about 5 CM personnel 
along with other support services such as hazardous material monitoring, surveying, and 
materials testing to the Third Street Project. UEB could not provide any CM personnel to 
the Project. The CM positions to be staffed by Muni is denoted as "M" underneath the 
positions on the organization chart in Attachment A-l. Positions to be staffed by DPW are 
denoted as "D". 

Having looked within the City for available and qualified CM personnel and for services to 
support the Project, Muni determined that supplemental consultant personnel and services 
would be needed where the City either lacks available personnel or expertise, or in case 
when DPW could not provide timely surveying and testing services. These consultant 
services are denoted as "C" in the organization chart, Their scope of services is summarized 
in Attachment B. 

Instead of hiring consultant CM services, Muni could hire additional in-house personnel but 
found it problematic for the following reasons: 



Page 1 of 4 

20 




AUG-01-2001 20=18 Attachment 1 p. 

Page 2 of 6 

1. The duration for the Project is relatively short. The Project is essentially a spike in 
our normal construction workload. Hiring additional Muni staff for short durations 
and then letting them go later would be difficult because: 

a) There will be few applicants interested in the positions. 

b) Short-term employees will feel less committed to their jobs. 

c) It will be difficult to retain temporary employees toward the end of the 
Project because they will seek employment elsewhere before they are let go. 

d) It is also difficult to retain temporary employees because they will most 
likely quit as soon as they find more stable employment. 

e) Letting staff go is bad for morale . 

2. The engineering labor market is very tight right now and is expected to remain this 
way in the next few years. It would be difficult for us to hire qualified short-term 
CM employees to fill these temporary vacant positions. 

3. For certain positions such as estimating, scheduling, Project Controls Manager, and 
Resident Engineer for the vehicle maintenance and storage facility, the City's salary 
structure would not be competitive with prevailing market conditions in order to 
attract qualified individuals to these positions. 

4. Certain CM services are specialty services such as weld testing and utility locating 
services which require special equipment and which services are not needed on a 
regular full-time basis. These specialty services should be provided by consultants. 

5. Under Federal Transit Administration guidelines, independent quality assurance 
(QA) is required for construction projects; therefore, Muni will need to obtain 
independent consultant support to provide QA services. 

Muni concluded that supplemental QA and CM services would be needed to support the 
Project. The consultant personnel would be employed on an as-needed basis when it is 
determined by Muni at the actual time of need that City staff could not fill the vacancies. 

Chronology of Consultant Selection Process 

On June 20, 2000, the Board of Municipal Transportation Agency (MTAB) approved a 
resolution to issue a Request for Proposal to procure professional QA and CM consultant 
services. Below is a chronology of the Consultant Selection Process. 

6/20/00 Under Resolution 00-070, MTAB approved a request to advertise an 

RFP for Contract CS-132, Quality Assurance and Construction 
Management Services for the Project, to receive proposals, to select a 
Consultant, and to negotiate a contract with the selected Consultant 
for a term of up to five years and for an amount not to exceed 
$16,000,000. The DBF goal was established as 15%. 

8/21/00 Advertised RFP for CS-132. 



Page 2 of 4 

21 



AU3-0 1-2001 20:19 



Attachment l 
Pase 3 of b 



P. 09 



8/22/00 Faxed advertisement of RFP to over 100 prospective consultant firms, 

mostly DBE firms. 

8/28/00 Conducted a conference for proposers to discuss the conflict-of- 

interest conditions established for CS-132. 

9/7/00 Conducted Pre-proposal Conference and issued minutes of the 

8/28/00 conference. 

9/7/00 Issued Addendum No. 1 to revise the DBE goal from 15% to 30%, 

and to extend the proposal due date from 9/22/00 to 9/29/00. 

9/14/00 Issued Addendum No. 2 to reduce the scope of work for supplemental 

constructibility review and engineering design review and to list 
addidonal reference documents available for review. Also issued 
minutes of the Pre-proposal Conference. 

9/25/00 Issued Clarification and Information for RFP Holders which listed 

several questions received from proposers and responses given. 

9/29/00 Received seven proposals from the following firms: 

1. Don Todd Associates, Inc. association with Carter & Burgess 

2. F.E. Jordan Assc. in joint venture with Turner Construction 
Co., and in association with HNTB 

3. Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc. 

4. Parsons Brinkerhoff Construction Services, Inc. in joint 
venture with Cornerstone Transportation Consulting 

5. Sverdrup Civil, Inc. in joint venture with Primus Industries, 
Inc. 

6. Third St. Light Rail Partnership, a joint venture of 
URS/O'Brien Kreitzberg, SYSTRA Consulting, Cooper 
Pugeda Management, Mendoza & Assc, and MSE Group 

7. KCA Engineers, Inc. 

10/3/00 KCA wrote to withdraw their proposal because they did not submit a 

complete proposal. 

10/4/00 Conducted orientation of the consultant selection process for CS-132 

with the Consultant Selection Committee members including 
representatives from the Contract Compliance Office (CCO) and the 
Contract Administration Section. 

10/10 & 10/1 1/00 Selection Committee met to discuss strengths and weaknesses 
of the six responsive proposals received, and to score each 
proposal. 

10/16/00 Received CCO's review of the raw scores and the ranking of the 

proposals. 



Page 3 of 4 



ftUG-0 1-2001 20=19 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 6~ 



P. 10 



10/1 8/00 Sent letters out to all proposers informing them whether they made 

the shortlist for the presentation and interview process or not. Of the 
six firms, Kal Krishnan did not make the shortlist. 

10/30 &. 10/3 1/00 Conducted presentation and interviews for each of the five 

shortlisted firms. Discussed strengths and weaknesses of each 
proposer. Proposers submitted sealed cost proposals. 

1 1/1/00 Completed discussion of strengths and weaknesses and scoring of 

each proposer. 

1 1/8/00 Received CCO's review of the raw scores and the ranking of the 

proposers, showing the joint venture team of Sverdrup-Primus as the 
highest ranking firm. 

After receiving CCO's confirmation of the selection process, Muni opened Sverdrup- 
Primus' cost proposal and began negotiations with Sverdrup-Primus. (Note that according to 
the Litde Brooks Act, selection of professional consultant shall be based on qualifications 
and not on cost; therefore, Muni could not open the sealed cost proposals of the other 
proposers. If Muni was not successful in negotiating a contract with Sverdrup-Primus, then 
we could open the proposal from the next highest ranking firm and commence negotiation 
with that firm.) In an effort to reduce cost for the contract. Primus offered to become a 
subconsultant to Sverdrup instead of being a! partner of the joint venture. In so doing, 
Primus will not have to obtain additional insurance coverage to meet contract requirements, 
Only Sverdrup will be required to provide the necessary insurance coverage to meet 
contractual requirements. Although Primus will be a subconsultant, they will still act in the 
same management capacity as a partner would in a joint venture as evident by the Joint 
Association Agreement as shown in Exhibit jl of the Agreement between Sverdrup and 
Muni. 

On June 20, 2001, Sverdrup-Primus and Muni consummated the negotiation process with 
Sverdrup signing a professional services agreement. On July 3, 2001, under Resolution 
Number 01-080, the MTAB approved the avjard of the QA and CM Contract to Sverdrup. 
The Agreement is awaiting approval from the Board of Supervisors and the Civil Service 
Commission. 



end: Atrhmt A & B 



M522.2.311 



Page 4 of 4 

23 



£ I - 

ill 



*i .y 



_. c 








<H 




F* 


« 


jr ~ 


£ 


go 


IX 


C -J 




<^ 





"•SB 



V 




^\ 












a. 


O 




in 


c 




| 


I 5 

o 




e 
o 


n 




ro 


O 




^ J 



Attachment 


: I 




Page 


^ 


° f /t^ 


fo 


r-\ 


I 




1 u 




o I 




- 1 

IS o 

It 




C-J 



^ 
V 




| o 




5 

u 




1 

1 1 

s 




o 

< 



i 








< 

3 

c ° 

1 
1 





ill 

1 


if I s 

1 


III- 

1 


!■ 

1 


1. u 

s s 

1 1 















cc ° 




5S 




\ 

! 




Si 

1 




1 















gTL— 3__— r 



ill 







ih 




f 




1° 
I 






": 




1 




1 




1 



















1 




1° 

1 




1 

















l|* i| 3 



nz ze 



24 



fiUG-0 1-2001 20=19 Attachment 1 P. 12 

Page 6 of 6 

ATTACHMENT B 
SCOPE OF QA & CM CONSULTANT SERVICES 

Task Description 

1 Project Administration and Management 

2 Independent Quality Assurance 

3 Resident Engineers 

4 Assistant Resident Engineer / Office Engineer 

5 Construction Inspectors or Field Engineers 

6 Project Controls Manager 

7 Schedule Analysis 

8 Cost Estimating 

9 Dispute and Claims Management 

10 Project Controls and General Reporting 

1 1 Clerical Support 

12 Public Affairs and Outreach 

13 Contract Compliance Support 

14 As-needed Estimating Support 

15 Financial Auditing 

16 Surveying 

17 Special Inspection and Testing 

18 Utility Locating Services 



TOTAL P. 12 



25 



Attachment II 



3 C7 


H 


O Cfl 


g & 


5 


~ 1" 
3 §■ 


o o 


s 




>§. 


Cfl 

CD 


ll 


O 3 


a 


a. 3 


S «= 


JP 


oi en 


o 

CO 

0> 


a. = 


<>* o 


2 


II 


05 -" 






o 


-a 


"o 
a 


a 


§ 3 


_o 


<* 


CD CD 




-i 3 


o 
o 


o 




o 


CD 


*< c 



CD -^ CJ £>» i. 

"to "_* cj a "cj 

J^- O) CJ CD 'nJ 

Ol i O CO O NJ 



S3 -«4 O J*. 

-A £» CJ -u 

"*». o OJ "o 



o ro ai oai ^ 

b u to b u w 

o -»• to o ro -a 

O -*J -* O O NJ 



26 



JUL-30-2001 19:44 



Page i ot Z 



P. 03 



CS-132 QA & CM Contract for Third St. Light Rail Transit 

Contract Value By Firms 
6/1/01 





m^mmm^:^''r 


^.PercehJSt}^.^ :: 


mt':mBB. .„; 


Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 


$4,182,421 


27.6% 




The Allen group 


$1,799,653 


11.9% 


11.9% 


Geotopo Inc. 


$100,000 


0.7% 


0.7% 


Ghiradelli Engineering 


$761,772 


5.0% 


5.0% 


Inspection Consultants, Inc. 


$300,000 


2.0% 


(pending) 


KJM & Associates 


$887,754 


5.9% 




Primus Industries, Inc. 


$3,223,645 


21.2% 


21.2% 


Don Schluter; Yano & Assc. 


$185,000 


1.2% 




Subtronics Corp. 


$125,000 


0.8% 




Summit Associates 


$1,942,422 


12,8% 


12.8% 


Washington Infrastructure 


$1,665,718 


11,0% 












Subtotal 


$15,173,385 


100.0% 


51.6% 


Escalation 


$826,615 






Total 


$16,000,000 







27 



TOTAL P. 03 



JUL-30-2001 19:44 



Attachment III 
2 of 2 



Page 
ATTACHMENT 111 



CS-132, QA & CM Consultant Contract 

Basis of Compensation 
6/1/01 



P. 02 











1 








1 I Software Support 


°erry PBterson ISverdrup Crvil. Inc. 


5153.01 




$48562 


1 


3 ro|aC. Accountant 


Sandy Su 


Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 


S8B.63 




$42,541 


1 


3 roiect Manaoar 


Michael Perez 


Sverdrup CM1, Inc. 


S161.41 




$77,477 














2 Iqa Auditor 


J. Hatmaker 


KJM & Associates 


$126.10 


880 


$887,754 
















3 


RE ITBD 


Ghiraselll Engineering 


$96.47 


455 


$351,133 


3 Ire 


Karon Chaw 


Sverdruo CM. Inc. 


$93.75 


560 


$419,B79 


3 Ire 


Bin Tslforas 


Sveranjp Crvil, Inc. i S123.08 


625 


5615,384 








1 






4 


AsstRE 


TBD 


Washington irtlrastnjcturs $85.60 


560| 








1 






5 


nspector 


Yann Zsufty 


The Allan group S90.25 


520 


$375,427 


5 


Inspector 


TBD 


Summit Associates 


SB2.13 


540 


5354,792 


5 


Inspector 


Dante Padiemcs 


Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 


$77.94 


540 


5336,705 


5 


Inspector 


TBD 


Washington Infrastructure 


$82.13 


665 


5436.920 


5 


Gal trans FE 


Andrew Kllabar 


Sverarup Civil, Inc. 


SS5.36 


665 


$507,292 


5 


Inspector 


TBD 


Washington Infrastructure 


S89.17 


560 


$399,470 


5 


Field ME 


TBD 


Washington Infrastructure 


S89.17 


625 


$445,837 


5 


Inspector 


TBD 


Ghlradelll Enolneertnq 


S82.13 


625 


$410,639 
















8 


PCM 


Dave Haliiaan 


Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 


5121.65 


1088 


51.05B.84S 
















7 


Scheduling 


TBD 


Primus Industries, Inc. 


S98.92 


900 


5712.235 


7 


Scheduling 


YorKj_Le« 


Summit Associates 


$100.90 


650 


$686,120 
















e 


Cost Estimating 


TBD 


Prtmue industries, Inc. 


S98.62 


840 


$649293 


8 


Cost Estimating 


TBD 


Prtmus Industries, Inc. 


$87.42 


840 


$587,456 
















9 


Dispute & Claims Mgmt 


William Andrew 


Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 


5115.03 


175 


$161,035 
















10 


PC & Genl Reporting 


Xla Hua Ye 


Primus Industries. Inc. 


$aa.4« 


1000 


$707,818 


1 10 IPC & GanJ Reportinq 


TBD 


Primus Industries, Inc. 


$80.52 


880 


$566,843 


| 














11 


Clencal Support 


TBD 


Summit Associates 


S53.97 


1088 


$469,753 


11 


Clerical Support 


TBD 


Summit Associates 


$53.97 


1000 


$431,758 
















12 


Public Aftairs & Outreach 


Velma Garaa 


The Allen group 


571.47 


900 


5514.618 


12 


Public Affairs & Oulreach 


Intern 


The Allen qroup 


$50.76 


880 


$357,315 
















13 


Contract Gomel Supo 


Ruby Smith 


The Allen q_roup 


$76.71 


900 


$552293 
















14 


As-neeaed EsUm Supp 




Sveranjp Cfvll, Inc. 






S186.916 


15 


Financial Auditing 




Den Schluter- Yano & Assc. 






$185,000 


16 


Surveying 




Geotopo Inc. 






$100,000 


17 


Spec Inspection & Tesbng 


Inspection Consultants, Inc. 






$300,000 


18 


Utility Locating 




SubtrcniCS Corp. 






$125,000 


















Fixed Fee ituq u-ib) 




Sverarup Civil. Inc. 






$27284 


















Computers & Software 




Sverdruo Crvil. Inc. 






$300,000 


lOutreach Expense 


Sverdruo Crvil. Inc. 






S200.000 




MiscODC 


Sverarup Crvil. Inc. 






5200.000 














1 




Present Val Total 


S15.173.385 




1 




1 I 










Aoorox. Escalation 


$626,615 




1 




" __ I 






1 


lApprox Eseal Tota 


$16,000,000 




1 


1 1 




28 





Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-1009 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of July 18, 
2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Municipal Transportation Agency 

Resolution approving the incentive fee amount of 
$409,901 for the Booz-Allen and Hamilton contract (CS- 
128) for Muni Metro service improvements for payment of 
incentive fees under San Francisco Municipal Railway 
Contract No. CS-128 with Booz-Allen and Hamilton and 
authorizing the release of $239,126 currently held in 
reserve. 

$409,901 (see Comment 10) 

$239,126 in FY 1998-1999 funds previously reserved by 
the Board of Supervisors in the MTA budget, plus 
$170,775 in the FY 2000-2001 MTA budget, totaling 
$409,901 (see Comment 10). 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Municipal 
Transportation Agency (MTA) to pay an incentive 
payment to Booz-Allen and Hamilton (Booz-Allen) of 
$409,901, for the work performed by Booz-Allen to have 
the Municipal Railway (Muni) meet performance goals 
outlined in the Muni Metro Recovery contract with Booz- 
Allen. This resolution would also authorize the release of 
$239,126 in funds previously reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors to partially fund the proposed incentive 
payment. 

In November of 1998, Booz-Allen was awarded a 
$4,440,909 Muni Metro Recovery contract for the 13- 
month period from December 2, 1998 through December 
31, 1999. In December of 1998, the Board of Supervisors 
approved funds for the Muni Metro Recovery contract as 
part of a larger supplemental appropriation of 
$14,784,305 for Muni (File 98-2010) 1 . When the 
supplemental appropriation was approved, the Board of 



1 The total supplemental appropriation of $14,784,305 included 7-months of funding for the period 
from December 2, 1998 through June 30, 1999 for the Booz-Allen contract ($2,630,000); technical 
services and supplies for the Boeing and Breda LRVs ($1,988,308); 8 new Muni positions, plus 
materials and supplies ($5,066,408); and budgetary offsets for decreased passenger fare revenues 
and Muni payments to BART ($5,099,589). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Supervisors reserved $239,126 for incentive payments 
under the contract with Booz-Allen. 

Under the terms of the contract, Booz-Allen would receive 
an incentive payment equal to 10 percent of the actual 
costs incurred by Booz-Allen if Muni were to meet four 
performance measures for each of three successive target 
periods (March 3, 1999 to April 1, 1999; April 30, 1999 to 
May 29, 1999; and August 30, 1999 to September 28, 
1999). Total incentive payments to be made to Booz-Allen 
for the three dates were not to exceed a maximum of 
$409,901. If Muni were to sustain the service 
improvement goals until the end of the contract 
(December 31, 1999) as a result of the contract work 
performed by Booz-Allen, the total incentive payment to 
be made to Booz-Allen was to increase from $409,901 to 
$888,182, or 20 percent of the total Booz-Allen contract 
amount of $4,440,909. The maximum incentive payment 
to Booz-Allen would have been $888,182 and the total 
maximum contract amount would have been $5,329,091 
($4,440,909 plus $888,182 in incentive payments). 

The Muni Metro Recovery contract with Booz-Allen was 
intended to address Muni Metro Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) 
service problems, including service delays and line 
failures. The contract provided that Booz-Allen would: 

(a) establish a Muni Action Team to be responsible for 
meeting overall schedule and service improvement 
goals, 

(b) provide additional training for Muni operating 
personnel, 

(c) develop more effective failure management strategies 
for the Advanced Train Control System (ATCS) 2 , 

(d) provide regular performance information to the public, 

(e) improve internal communications by installing video 
display terminals at various stations for Muni 
operations personnel, distributing daily performance 
data to senior management, and recommending 
upgrades to the existing radio system and central 
control facilities, 



2 The ATCS provides control of normal LRV train operations (such as acceleration and deceleration), 
station stops, and door operations of the subway. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



(f) conduct service planning by developing an operations 
plan and train schedule, conducting an 
origin/destination study, and conducting a customer 
satisfaction survey, 

(g) establish maintenance standards and procedures for 
the Breda LRVs, which replaced the Boeing LRVs, 

(h) implement an emergency retrofit program for the 
Boeing LRVs until fully replaced by the Breda LRVs, 
and 

(i) work with the manufacturer of the ATCS to improve 
operational reliability. 

Under the Muni Metro Recovery contract, Booz-Allen 
would receive incentive payments equal to 10 percent of 
the costs incurred by Booz-Allen as of the dates of the 
target periods, not to exceed $409,901, for meeting four 
specific performance measures for each of three target 
periods. The three target periods were March 3, 1999 to 
April 1, 1999; April 30, 1999 to May 29, 1999; and August 
30, 1999 to September 28, 1999. The four specific 
performance measures were: 

• An increase in the number of LRVs in service each 
day; 

• A decrease in the number of delays due to line failures 
resulting in significant service delays; 

• A reduction in the average system delay for each line 
failure; and 

• An increase in on-time performance. 

As noted above, under the terms of the Muni Metro 
Recovery contract, Booz-Allen was entitled to total 
incentive payments not to exceed $409,901 if all four 
performance measures were met by Muni on each of the 
target dates, with a final target date of August 30, 1999 to 
September 28, 1999 (see Comment 2). If the performance 
measures were sustained by Muni until December 31, 
1999, Booz-Allen was entitled to total incentive payments 
of $888,182, or 20 percent of the contract amount of 
$4,440,909. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize 
$409,901 in incentive payments to Booz-Allen, including 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



the release of $239,126 currently held in reserve for the 
incentive payments. 

1. As noted above, the subject Muni Metro Recovery 
contract expired on December 31, 1999. According to Mr. 
Vince Harris of MTA, the originally proposed incentive 
payment of $409,901 (see Comment 10) to Booz-Allen was 
a result of a negotiated agreement between the MTA and 
Booz-Allen. 



2. The attached memorandum (Attachment), provided by 
MTA, explains the basid for the original four performance 
measures and the method for determining if the four 
performance measures were met by Muni during each of 
the three target periods. According to Mr. Harris, as a 
result of the work of Booz-Allen, Muni achieved all of the 
performance measures on the first and second target 
dates but not on the third target date. The following table 
shows the target and achieved performance measures for 
the three target dates: 



Performance Measures 


March 3, 1999 to 
April 1, 1999 


April 30, 1999 to 
May 29, 1999 


August 30, 1999 to 
September 28, 1999 


Target 


Achieved 


Target 


Achieved 


Target 


Achieved 


• Number of vehicles in 
service each day 


80 


88 


85 


85 


95 


95 


• Number of delays due 
to line failures per 
month 


987 


727 


740 


540 


494 


403 


• Average system delay 
per line failure (1) 


30 
minutes 


28 
minutes 


20 
minutes 


20 
minutes 


10 
minutes 


13 
minutes 


• On-time performance 


70% 


72% 


80% 


80% 


90% 


86% 



3. Under the terms of the Muni Metro Recovery contract 
with Booz-Allen, Muni was required to meet the four 
specific performance measures for each of the three target 
dates in order for Booz-Allen to receive an incentive 
payment equal to 10 percent of the costs incurred through 
September 28, 1999, but not to exceed $409,901. Muni 
achieved the four specific target measures for the periods 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



from March 3, 1999 to April 1, 1999 and from April 30, 
1999 to May 29, 1999, but, as shown in the table above, 
Muni did not achieve two of the four specific performance 
measures for the period from August 30, 1999 to 
September 28, 1999, including average system delay per 
line failure and on-time performance. For the target 
period from August 30, 1999 to September 28, 1999, the 
average system delay per line failure for LRVs was 13 
minutes compared to a performance goal of 10 minutes, 
and on-time time performance was 86 percent compared 
to a performance goal of 90 percent. 

4. However, Mr. Harris states that MTA had agreed to 
pay Booz-Allen incentive payments totaling $409,901 for 
all three target periods because Muni did not meet all of 
its obligations under the contract, thereby preventing 
Booz-Allen's work from having Muni achieve the four 
specific performance measures for each of the target 
periods. According to Mr. Harris, under the terms of the 
Muni Metro Recovery contract, if Muni did not satisfy 
Muni's responsibilities under the contract, Booz-Allen 
would be entitled to the 10 percent incentive payment for 
the target period, but not to exceed $409,901. Specifically, 
Muni's responsibilities were defined as: (a) to provide 
necessary funding for the entire service improvement 
program, for a duration of up to 12 months; (b) to 
establish blanket purchase orders with Alcatel (for the 
ATCS) and with Breda (for the LRVs) within 14 days; (c) 
to establish other purchasing arrangements with Breda, 
such as time and materials on-call services contracts, 
within 30 days; (d) to provide necessary key and support 
personnel; and (e) to solicit proposals from the private 
sector to provide additional communications and 
information technology such as remote operational status 
monitors and passenger information displays. 

5. According to Mr. Harris, Muni was not able to negotiate 
a purchasing agreement within 14 days with Alcatel to 
provide engineering support and to make software 
changes to the ATCS. The actual purchasing agreement 
with Alcatel was established on March 30, 1999 or within 
118 days. Mr. Harris states that the delay in negotiating 
an agreement with Alcatel contributed to Booz-Allen's 
inability to meet the average system delay per line 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



failure and on-time performance measures during 
the third target period from August 30, 1999 to 
September 28, 1999. Mr. Harris states that, as a result of 
Booz-Allen's efforts, Muni was able to meet these 
performance measures in the prior two target periods, 
from March 3, 1999 to April 1, 1999 and April 30, 1999 to 
May 29, 1999, because Muni was less dependent on 
Alcatel software upgrades. 

6. According to Mr. Harris, Booz-Allen has identified two 
additional issues that contributed to lower performance: 

(a) Muni did not negotiate a contract with Breda for time 
and materials on-call service contracts within 30 days, 
as required under the terms of the Muni Metro 
Recovery contract. Mr. Harris states that such a 
contract with Breda was established on February 5, 
1999 or within 65 days. 

(b) Muni was delayed in establishing a contract with 
Alstom for rehabilitation of the Boeing LRVs. Mr. 
Harris states that, although the contract with Alstom 
was not part of the Booz-Allen Muni Metro Recovery 
contract, the Alstom contract was part of the overall 
Muni Metro Recovery Program. 

7. In addition to the Muni Metro Recovery contract with 
Booz-Allen, totaling $4,440,909, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated $5,400,000 in order for Muni to meet its 
responsibilities under the Muni Metro Recovery program 
for the period from December 1998 through December 
1999. The Muni Metro Recovery program was budgeted 
at $5,400,000 for expenditures for repair services for the 
Breda LRVs ($1,000,000), additional Breda LRV parts 
and services ($600,000), Breda LRV technicians 
($1,000,000), Alcatel ATCS technicians ($500,000), Alcatel 
ATCS parts and engineering support ($1,300,000), and 
Boeing LRV parts ($1,000,000). Mr. Harris states that 
Muni met its obligations to purchase the above parts and 
services to support the Muni Metro Recovery program. In 
addition, the subject funds were expended on upgrades to 
Muni's Central Control Operations Room and the "Next 
Bus" GPS (Global Positioning System) vehicle arrival 
prediction pilot program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



8. According to Mr. Harris, during the 13-month term of 
the Muni Metro Recovery contract from December of 1998 
through December of 1999, 9 additional Breda LRVs were 
placed in service. Mr. Harris advises that Muni staff 
worked jointly with Booz-Allen to achieve the four 
performance goals for each of the target periods, and that 
staff from Booz-Allen were used as an extension of Muni 
staff. 

9. As noted previously, although Booz Allen did not 
achieve two of the four performance goals for the third 
target period from August 30, 1999 through September 
28, 1999, MTA has proposed to pay an incentive payment 
of $409,901 to Booz-Allen under the Muni Metro Recovery 
contract, based upon the reported failure by Muni to 
negotiate agreements with Alcatel and Breda within the 
timelines specified by the contract, and the reported delay 
by Muni in establishing a contract with Alstom as part of 
the Muni Metro Recovery program. In addition, the Muni 
Metro Recovery contract with Booz-Allen provided for a 
total incentive payment of $888,182 (including the 
payment of $409,091), or 20 percent of $4,440,909, if the 
four performance measures achieved as of September 28, 
1999, were sustained through December 31, 1999. Mr. 
Harris states that the four performance measures were 
not sustained through December 31, 1999, and as a 
result, MTA had proposed that Booz-Allen receive an 
incentive payment of $409,901, rather than the total 
potential incentive payment of $888,182. 

10. According to Ms. Laura Spanjian of MTA, on August 
1, 2001, MTA and Booz-Allen reached a new negotiated 
agreement to reduce the proposed incentive payment by 
$73,475, from $409,901 to $336,426. Therefore, approval 
of the proposed resolution would authorize a total 
incentive payment of $336,426, which is $73,475 less than 
the originally proposed incentive payment of $409,901. 
The subject resolution should be amended to provide for a 
reduced incentive fee amount of $336,426. The source of 
funds would be $239,126 in monies previously reserved by 
the Board of Supervisors in the MTA budget, plus $97,300 
in the FY 2000-2001 MTA budget, totaling $336,426. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



11. The Budget Analyst notes that the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated $5,400,000 for Muni 
expenditures in addition to the $4,440,909 contract with 
Booz-Allen for parts and services, including upgrades to 
the Central Control Operations Room and the Next Bus 
GPS vehicle arrival prediction pilot program, to support 
the Muni Metro Recovery program. Further, Muni 
purchased 9 new Breda LRVs, which were placed in 
service during the 13-month term of the subject Booz- 
Allen contract. Because (a) Booz-Allen did not achieve all 
four performance measures for the three target periods, 
(b) the performance measures that were achieved for the 
three target periods were not sustained, (c) in addition to 
the appropriation of $4,440,909 for the contract with 
Booz-Allen, the Board of Supervisors appropriated 
$5,400,000 for parts and services, which contributed to 
improved Muni service, and (d) nine new Breda LRVs 
were placed in service during the 13-month term of the 
Booze-Allen contract, the Budget Analyst considers 
approval of the proposed incentive payment of $336,426 
to Booz-Allen to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Recommendations: 1. Amend (a) the title of the proposed resolution, page 1, 

line 3, by deleting $409,901 and substituting $336,426 to 
state "Resolution approving the incentive fee amount of 
$336,426 for the Booz-Allen & Hamilton contract... "and 
(b) page 2, line 6, by deleting $409,901 and substituting 
$336,426. 

2. Because of the facts cited in Comment No. 11 above, the 
Budget Analyst considers approval of this proposed 
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



u/zn/ui 1HU 15:52 FAX 415 554 3217 ENGINEERING & CONSTR. Attachment 

Pa.ee 1 of 6 

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL RAILWAY * CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 

1 145 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103-1545 
(415)554-0785 Fax (4 15) 554-3217 



To: Harvey Rose, 

Budget Analyst 

Through: Michael T. Burns, 
General Manager 
Muni 





From: Vince Harris 

Deputy General Manager 
Muni Construction Division 

Date: July 12, 2001 

Subject: Incentive Fee Payment to Booz-Allen & Hamilton 
(BAH) for Contract CS-128 



Introduction : 



This memo is written in response to specific questions 
received from the Budget Analyst's Office regarding payment 
of the subject Incentive Fee to Booz-Allen, Hamilton on 
Contract CS-128. 



Background: 

On August 22, 1998, MUNI simultaneously implemented five 
major service changes in Metro Service: 

1) 1 st use of the Muni Metro Turnback (MMT) in revenue 
service; 

2) Elimination of "Reverse Riders" at Embarcadero Station; 

3) N-Line Through-service to CalTrain, replacing the 
"CalTrain Shuttle"; 

4) Proof-of-Payment on the N-Line; and 

5) Full use of the Advanced Train Control System (ATCS) in 
the extended subway. 

MUNI was inadequately prepared to implement these major 
changes in Metro service and operations. The result was a 
two-week period of chaos on the Metro System, which lives 
on in public memory as the infamous "Muni Meltdown." 



37 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 6 



07/12/01 THU 15:53 FAI 415 554 3217 ENGINEERING & CONSTR. 



Letter to Sarvey Rose 
Page Two 
July 12, 2001 



Public outcry demanded an immediate solution. Within two 
weeks, with help and support from the Mayor's office and 
the 3oard of Supervisors, Metro service beg.in to recover, 
and has been steadily improving ever since. 

During the course of the crisis, Booz-Allen was engaged to 
provide its services as an industry expert in developing 
and improving transit operations. As the engineering 
consultant on both the ATCS contract and the Breda Light 
Rail Vehicle (LRV2) procurement, Booz-Allen was in a unique 
position to facilitate integration of those systems. 
Additionally, Booz-Allen had experience in transportation 
start-up programs worldwide, as well as an intimate 
knowledge of MUNI's systems and staff. The City supported 
this proposed approach, and directed staff to negotiate a 
professional services contract with Booz-AlLen for the 
purpose of improving MUNI Metro service, to meet specific 
performance goals on an aggressive timetable. The Mayor 
also established a Muni Council of senior City officials 
(including the City Attorney, Controller, Purchaser, 
Director of Human Resources, Muni staff and Labor 
representatives) to oversee the progress of Metro service 
improvements, and to streamline City processes in realizing 
the goals of the Metro Improvement Program. 

On November 5, 1998, the Public Transportation Commission 
authorized the General Manager of the San E'rancisco 
Municipal Railway to execute Contract CS-128 for 
Professional Consulting Services with Booz-Allen. The 
objectives of the consulting services under Contract CS-128 
were to assist MUNI in solving several crucial problems in 
delivering improved passenger services. Service quality 
was defined in terms of 1) system ridership capacity during 
peak periods; 2) maximum passenger wait times; and 3) other 
essential quality items such as passenger information. 
Service improvements were quantitatively evaluated based 
upon specific performance metrics: 

• Daily fleet in service (number of cars) 

• Line failures per month 

• Average system delay per line failure 

• Headway management and on-time performance 



38 



07/12/01 THU 15:53 FAX 415 554 3217 ENGINEERING & CONSTR. 

Attachment 
Page 3 of 6 



Letter to Ha.zvey Rose 
Page Three 
July 12, 2001 



Muni. Responses to Budget Analyst's Questions: 

This section addresses specific questions asked by the 
Budget Analyst regarding Incentive Fee Payment to Booz- 
Allen: 

1) Does the contract allow for partial payment of the 
Incentive Fee to Booz-Allen? 

Response: The Contract does not allow for partial payment 
of a milestone in the Incentive package. The Contract does 
require that specific performance measures oe achieved in 
order for payment to be made. 

2) Sow were the four performance measures established for 
the three target periods? 

Response: Booz-Allen, because of their reputation as an 
industry leader in transit operations and maintenance, 
presented a proposed level of system performance 
measurements that were reviewed by Muni staff, legal 
counsel, and the Muni Council. The consensus of these 
reviewers was that the performance measures proposed were 
acceptable, and represented targets that were in-line with 
industry standards. 

3a) During negotiations of the Booz-Allen Contract, who 

determined the 14-day time line to establish a blanket 
Purchase Order with Breda? 

Response: The 14-day time line was established jointly 
between staff, Booz-Allen and the Muni Council. 

3b) Was the 14 -day time line a short or usual time frame 
for establishing such a Purchase Order? 

Response: This time line could be viewed oS short; 
however, the drafters of the agreement felt it was 
achievable and necessary due to the urgency of the system 
problems. Muni assigned staff specifically to negotiate 
and place this work underway. However, the* 14-day deadline 
was not achieved. 



39 



07/12/01 THU 15:53 FAI 415 554 3217 ENGINEERING & CONSTR. Attachment 

Page k ot 6 



letter Co Harvey Kose 
Page Four 
July 12, 2001 



3c) How much was the incentive payment supposed to be on 
each of the three scheduled milestone dates? 

Response: The estimated incentive payments were as follows: 

• Milestone 1: March 3, 1999-April 1, 1999 - $163,051.14 

• Milestone 2: April 30, 1999-May 29, 1999 - $ 63,163.35 

• Milestone 3: August 30, 1999-September 28, 1999 - 
$183,686.35 

3d.) What trere the actual performance measures on these 
milestone dates compared to the target measures? 

Response: The first performance improvement milestone was 
measured from March 3 through April 1, 1999, and all 
performance improvement goals were exceeded: 

• Number of cars in daily service was increased to 88, 
against a goal of 80 (exceeded) 

• Delays per month were reduced to 72'/, against a goal 
of 987 (exceeded) 

• Average duration of failures was reduced to 28 
minutes, against a goal of 30 minutes (exceeded) 

• On-time performance was increased to 72 percent, 
against a goal of 70 percent (exceeded) 

The second performance improvement milestone was measured 
from April 30 through May 29, 1999 and all performance 
improvement goals were either met or exceeCed: 

• Number of cars in daily service was 85, against a 
goal of 85 (met) 

• Delays per month were reduced to 540, against a goal 
of 740 (exceeded) 

• Average duration of failures was reduced to 20 
minutes, against a goal of 20 minutes (met) 

• On-time performance was increased to 80 percent, 
against a goal of 80 percent (met) 



40 



07/12/01 IHO 15:54 FA1 415 554 0217 ENGINEERING & CONSTR. Attachment 

Page 5 of 6 



Xettsr co Harvey Rose 
Page Five 
July 12, 20C1 



The third performance improvement milestone was measured 
from August 30 through September 28, 1999 and three of the 
five performance improvement goals were either met or 
exceeded. The fifth performance goal, applied to the third 
milestone only, made the distinction between one and two 
car trains: 

• Number of cars in daily service was increased to 95, 
against a goal of 95 (met) 

• Delays per month were reduced to 4013, against a goal 
of 494 (exceeded) 

• Average duration of failures, for one-car trains, 
was reduced to 16 minutes, against -i goal of 20 
minutes (exceeded) 

• Duration of failures, for two car tcains, was 
reduced to 13 minutes, against a go.il of 10 minutes 
(not met) 

• On-time performance was increased to 8 6 percent, 
against a goal of 90 percent (not met) 

The first and second milestones were met. Substantial 
performance improvement in all the criteria, were achieved 
for the third milestone, although not all performance goals 
were met. The City did not fulfill all of their 
obligations under the contract, which contributed to some 
of the goals for the third milestone not be:ing met. 

4a) How long was the delay in placing the contract with 
Breda compared to the expected time of placing the 
contract In service? 

Response: The contract required that Muni place in service 
a contract with Breda for time and materials on-call 
service within 30 days of execution of the Booz-Allen 
contract. In actuality, the contract with Breda was 
executed 65 days after the Booz-Allen contract. 



41 



07/12/01 THll 15:54 FAI 415 554 3217 



ENGINEERING & CONSTR. 



Attachment 
Page 6 of 6 



Letter co Harvey Rose 
Page Six 
July 12, 2001 



4b) How did this affect Booz -Allen's abi-Lity to achieve 
each of the four performance measures by each of the 
three milestone dates? 

Response: The delay in executing the Breda contract had 
little impact on Milestone 1 and 2; however, achievement of 
all performance measures in Milestone 3 were affected 
because a greater number of operating Breda vehicles were 
required in order to sustain the targeted level of two-car 
train performance. 



42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5- File 01-1431 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of the Environment (DOE) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of the 
Environment to expend a grant in the amount of 
$7,800,000 from the California Public Utilities 
Commission for a small business lighting retrofit 
program. 

$7,800,000 

August 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 (23 months) 

California Public Utilities Commission 

The subject grant would fund the "Power Boosters 
Program," designed to help small business owners 
improve energy efficiency and thus reduce energy costs. 
The program will provide small businesses with energy 
efficiency audits free of charge, and for a low fee provide a 
range of technical services. Small business owners would 
receive partial rebates and subsidies on the purchase and 
installation of new equipment as part of the program. 

According to Mr. Mark Westlund of DOE, under the 
Power Boosters program an estimated 6,000 small 
business energy audits will be conducted and an 
estimated 4,000 small businesses would be assisted in 
increasing energy efficiency. Mr. Westlund advises that if 
efficiency goals are met, the program would save 24 
million kilowatt hours per year. According to Mr. 
Westlund, the current commercial electricity rate is $0.11 
per kilowatt hour, but can go as high as $0.30 per 
kilowatt hour, meaning that a savings of 24 million 
kilowatt hours could save businesses from $2,640,000 to 
$7,200,000 per year. 

According to Mr. Westlund, initially, the Department of 
the Environment intends to conduct an "Early Rollout" 
pilot program, which will include performing energy 
efficiency audits and helping implement new energy 
saving methods for approximately 40 small businesses. 
These pilot projects will be used as examples when 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



promoting the program. The services under the Early 
Rollout program will be performed through a $200,000 
workorder with the Department of Public Works (DPW). 
Mr. Westlund advises that DPW plans to award a 
$200,000 contract for the work on a sole source basis to 
Newcomb Anderson Associates, a consulting engineering 
firm that specializes in energy efficiency and is currently 
performing similar work under contract with DPW. DPW 
originally selected Newcomb Anderson Associates through 
a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process in 
1998, according to Mr. Roger Wong of DPW. 

The consultant would provide the following services: (a) 
design and planning of the Early Rollout program, (b) 
development of a marketing plan, (c) assisting the DOE in 
selecting businesses and marketing the program, (d) 
conducting energy efficiency audits of approximately 60 
businesses, (e) provision of price estimates for energy- 
saving recommendations, (f) provision of construction 
management services for each installation of the new 
energy saving equipment, such as high efficiency lamps, 
daylight controls for interior spaces, and photocells to 
control exterior lighting, and (g) completion of a program 
evaluation at the conclusion of the Early Rollout Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: The FY 2001-2002 budget for DOE and contractual 

services costs for the Early Rollout pilot program is as 
follows: 

Salaries (for 10 months): 
2.0 FTE 5640 Environmental 

Specialists $109,460 

1.0 FTE 5608 Senior Energy Specialist 52,888 

0.5 FTE 1426 Administrative Support 16,872 

0.25 FTE Resource Efficiency Manager* 20,716 

0.10 FTE Public Information Officer* 5,486 

0.10 FTE Deputy Director* 9,565 

Related Fringe Benefits 60.196 

Subtotal Salaries and benefits $275,183 

Services and Supplies: 

Local Field Expense 1,500 

DPW Overhead 20,000 

Office Supplies and Equipment 26,750 

Advertising 9,050 

Rent 46,971 

Information Services 7,097 

Legal Services 1.500 

Subtotal Services and Supplies 112,868 

Contractual Services (workorder to DPW): 
PreAudit Services 5,094 

Recruitment/Coordination 6,150 

Audits/Reporting 18,450 

Design/Construction Mgt. 18,450 

Installation Subcontractor 

(see Comment No. 5) 132,000 

Program Evaluation 4,920 

Direct Costs 936 

Marketing 14.000 

Subtotal Early Rollout Pilot Program 200,000 

TOTAL COST $588,051 

* These .45 FTE positions are existing DOE positions and a portion of 
their General Fund salary costs will be reimbursed from the subject 
grant. These salary costs have been calculated at 12 months because 
staff is already begun working on the subject grant. The grant- 
funded salaries and fringe benefits for these positions, which total 
$45,782, would be credited to the General Fund as grant recoveries. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Attachment I, provided by the Department, provides a 23- 
month budget for the expenditure of the entire $7,800,000 
in grant funds. 

Comment: 1. In addition to the Newcomb Anderson Associates 

contract for the Early Rollout program, the DOE plans to 
select two additional outside contractors under a Request 
for Proposals (RFP) process to (1) implement and (2) 
evaluate the Small Business Lighting Program. 
Therefore, DOE does not yet have specific cost details, 
including hours and hourly rates, for the subject grant 
funds in the amount of $6,847,500 ($6,750,000 budgeted 
for a contractor to implement the program, plus $97,500 
budgeted for a contractor to evaluate the program, as 
shown in Attachment I). 

Mr. Westlund advises that the Department plans to 
conduct an RFP process upon approval of this resolution, 
and that cost and project details would be available once 
the contractors are selected. Additionally, Mr. Westlund 
advises that the $46,971 budgeted for rent is for space at 
the DOE's current location at 11 Grove St., which is 
leased through the Yully Company. Mr. Westlund further 
advises that the Department is attempting to lease an 
additional approximately 1,467 square feet at the rate of 
$2.66 per square foot per month for the program, which 
would require an amendment to its current lease, which 
will be subject to Board of Supervisors approval. The new 
leased space would be rented through the duration of the 
grant, and the budgeted amount would cover 
approximately the first year's worth of rent, according to 
Mr. Westlund. 

Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends reserving 
$6,847,500 for outside contracts, and $364,449 budgeted 
for personnel and services and supplies in FY 2002-2003, 
plus $46,971 budgeted for rent, pending award of the 
contracts and submission to the Finance Committee of a 
program plan and complete budget details, resulting in a 
total recommended reserve of $7,258,920. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. The subject grant would create 3.5 new FTE positions, 
which Mr. Westlund advises would only be in place 
through the duration of the grant. 

The Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed 
resolution be amended to designate the 3.5 new FTE 
positions, created under the proposed grant, as "G" or 
grant-funded positions. 

3. A resolution authorizing the acceptance of the subject 
grant was approved by the Board of Supervisors July 30, 
2001. The DOE had requested early approval of 
acceptance so that it could sign the State grant award 
prior to the August 1, 2001 deadline to accept the grant. 

4. Information Services, which include computer and 
phone installation and maintenance, and Legal Services 
will be provided through workorders with the Department 
of Telecommunications and Information Services and the 
City Attorney, respectively, according to Mr. Westlund. 

5. Mr. Westlund advises that the $132,000 budgeted for 
the Installation Subcontractor under the Early Rollout 
program is for the installation of energy-efficient lighting 
at 40 locations. This includes labor and equipment, which 
the Department estimates will cost $3,300 per location. 

6. Attachment II is the grant information sheet, provided 
by the Department. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET.^ALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 8, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



1. In accordance with Comment No. 1, reserve $7,258,920, 
pending submission to the Finance Committee of 
additional budget details and the contract awards, 
including the number of hours and hourly rates of the 
contractors, and the rent details. 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



2. Amend the proposed resolution to urge the Controller 
to designate the 3.5 new FTE positions created under the 
proposed grant as "G", or grant funded positions, as noted 
in Comment No. 2. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 




Harvey M. Rose 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Attachment I 
Pas-e 1 of 3 



San Francisco Power Boosters Prog 


ram 














Administration 


General Management * 


Overhead* 




2001-2002 


Personnel" 




%of 


Bi-Weekly 














FTE 


Salary 




Fringe 


2001 


-2002 




Environmental Specialist (5640) 


1.00 


S 


2,527.00 


28% 


$ 


54,730 




Environmental Specialist (5640) 


1.00 


$ 


2,527.00 


28% 


$ 


54,730 




Senior Energy Specialist (5608) 


1.00 


$ 


2,442.00 


28% 


$ 


52,889 




Administrative Support (1426) 


0.50 


$ 


1,558.00 


28% 


$ 


16,872 




Resource Efficiency Manager 


0.25 


S 


3,187.00 


28% 


$ 


20,716 




Public Information Officer 


0.10 


$ 


2,110.00 


28% 


$ 


5,486 




Deputy Director 


0.10 


$ 


3,679.00 


28% 


$ 


9,565 




Sub Totals: 2001-2002 


3.95 






S 60,196.32 


$ 


214,987 




Sub-Total Personnel 01-02 










$ 


275,183 




Services & Supplies 




Local Field Expense 










$ 


1,500 




DPW Overhead 










$ 


20,000 




Copy Machine 










$ 


2,400 




Advertising 










$ 


9,050 


Office Supplies 


$ 


2,250 


Rent 




I 


$ 


46,971 


Equipment 






$ 


14,900 


ISD Services 




$ 


7,097 


Legal Services 


$ 


1,500 


Postage 


$ 


4,000 


Reproduction 


$ 


3,200 




Sub-Total Services & Supplies 










$ 


112,868 








Program 




I 




Pilot 


audit/installed 






jTask 1 


PreAu< 


jit Services 




$123/41 hrs 


$5,094 


[Task 2 


Recrui 


tment, Coordination*** 


$123/50 hrs 


$6,150 


iTask3 


Audits/ 


Reporting 




$123/150.4 hrs 


$18,450 




Task 4 


Desigr 


/Construction 


Mgt 


!$123/150hrs 


$18,450 




Task 5 


Installs 


tion Subcontractor 


$3,300/40 sites 




$132,000 




Task 6 


Progra 


m Evaluation/Followup 


$123/40 hrs 




$4,920 






Direct 


Costs 








$936 




Sub-Total Pilot 












$186,000 




| 




Marketing 






Pilot program 


Labor 


$123/102 Hrs 








$12,600 






Printin 


g/materials 








$1,400 




Sub-Total Pilot Marketing 












$14,000 


: 




Sub-Total Pilot/Overhead 01-02 












$588,051 





49 



Attachment I 











Page 2 of 3 


San Francisco Power Boosters Program 


2002-2003 




Personnel 10 Month year ends April 03 jFTE | Salary Fringe I2002-2003 


(Environmental Specialist (5640) ! 1.00 i $ 2,527.00! 28% j $ 58,834 


'Environmental Specialist (5640) ; 1.00 \ $ 2,527.00 i 28% 


$ 58,834 


Senior Energy Specialist (5608) 1.00;$ 2,442.00 ] 28% 


$ 56,855 


(Administrative Support (1426) j 0.50 i S 1,558.00! 28% 


$ 18,137 


i Resource Efficiency Manager ! 0.25 I $ 3,187.00 28% 


$ 20,413 


Public Information Officer 0.10 j $ 2,110.00 ! 28% 


$ 5,406 


Deputy Director | 0.10 | $ 3,679.00 I 28% 


$ 9,426 


Totals: 2002-2003 j 3.95 I !$ 63,814 


$ 227,907 


Sub-Total 02-03 Personnel 




$ 291,721 
















Services & Supplies 




i 




Local Field Expense 






$ 1,500 


DPW Overhead 




I 


$ 


Copy Machine 






$ 2,400 


Advertising 




I 


$ 4,400 


Office Supplies 






$ 2,250 




Rent 






$ 47,881 




Equipment 








$ 




ISD Services 








$ 7,097 




Legal Services 








$ 




Postage 








$ 4,000 




Reproduction 








$ 3,200 




Sub-Total Service & Supplies 








$ 72,728 
















Sub-Total 02-03 Overhead 








$ 364,449 














Main RFP 












Marketing 














Prime contractor 


Labor 


$123/2000 Hrs 




246,000 






Printing/materials 




$60,000 




Sub-Total Marketing 


I 




$306,000* 












Installations 














Standards/QC protocols 




$90/667 hrs 


$ 60,000.00 




QA/QC, warranty, CB procedures '$123/615 hrs 


$ 75,600.00 


i Solicit contractors 


! $90/889 hrs 


$ 80,000.00 


Initial Quality Control 


;$90/1017hrs 


$ 91,500.00 


i Project Management *"* 


| $625/3960 site 


$ 2,475,000.00 


i 




kW delivered |$415/5940kw 


$ 2,465,100.00 


I Sub-Total Installations 




$5,247,200.00* 


! 





50 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3 



San Francisco Power Boosters Program 


Audits 


! Standards/Quality Control protocols j $90/1 333 hrs 


120,000 




Recruitment ! $123/820 hrs 


100,800 




Training ,$123/976 hrs ] 120,000 




Initial Quality Control i $90/2444 hrs 


220,000 


Audits"" ,Audits/QC/transmittal '$100/6360 hrs 


636,000 


i Sub-Total Audits $1,196,800* 


* Sub-Total Main RFP (contract for program implementation) $6,750,000 


j i 




Monitoring and Verification RFP 


Task 1 I Design monitoring systems $90/58 hrs 5,250 


lTask2 jSet up monitoring systems $90/100 hrs 9,000 




Task 3 ! Data collection $90/400 hrs 


36,000 




Task 4 jData analysis [$90/275 hrs 


24,750 




Task 5 (Draft report !$90/150hrs 13,500 




Task 6 Final report $90/100 hrs 


9,000 


Sub-Total Monitoring/Verification (contract for program evaluation) | 


$ 97,500.00 








TOTAL 






$7,800,000 






I I 






* General management and Overhead are listed as separate line items in the CPUC contract, 
but in this budget are shown as Personnel, Services and Supplies 




** Grant-specific hires are noted with civil service category, existing positions are not. The grant- 
specific hires are calculated at 10 months each fiscal year, due to hiring schedule in the first 
year, and termination of work in second. Existing staff are calculated at 12 months in FY 2001- 
2002 because staff is already engaged in working on grant, and at 1 1 months next FY due to 
termination of funds, and final report completion. 


*" This item is separate from the Marketing-Pilot Program line item listed above in Admin. 


**** These line items are paid by the CPUC to the City for performance rather than by labor and 
i materials costs. This is also how the Prime Contractor will be reimbursed by the City. 



51 



File K-umben 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of Z 



(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 



Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 



Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
expend grant funds. 

Tha following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1 . Grant Title: Small Business Lighting Retrofits 

2. Department: Environment 

3. Contact Person: Cal Broomhead Telephone: (415) 554-6390, (415) 934-4802 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[x] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for $7,800,000 

6a. Matching Funds Required: SO 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): N/A 

7a. Grant Source Agency: California Public Utilities Commission 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): N/A 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: This project is designed to develop and implement a lighting 
retrofit program to help small businesses in San Francisco reduce their electric bills and reduce the 
peak load. The program will be managed by the Department of Environment and implemented 
through a contractor. 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: August 1, 2001 End-Date: June 30, 2003 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: 3.f 



11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? Provisional 
employees will be terminated unless additional funding can be found. 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: $7,047,500 ($752,500 will remain in the Department budget 
to cover management and overhead costs.) 



52 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 
b.-Will contractual services be put out to bid? Yes. 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 

requirements? Yes. 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? One-time 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [x] Yes [ ] No 

b1 . If yes, how much? $ $560,000 

b2. How was the amount calculated? Amount designated by granting agency. 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [ ] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 

"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 



[x] Existing Site(s) 
[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) 
] New Site(s) 



[ ] Existing Structure(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) 

[ ] New Structure(s) 



[ ] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 
[ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 



16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer, 



(Name) 



Date Reviewed: 



Department Approval: 



David Assmann 




(Signature) 



DeDutv Director 



(Title) 



53 






p-<25 




COUjy^X 

City Hall 
<&\ Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 
§OARD of SUPERVISORS [u[ ejgpC ^f )*] ^,San Francisco 94102-4689 

Tel. No. 554-5184 
Fax No. 554-5163 
K$/ TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 

^FINANCE COMMITTEE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meeting of the Finance Committee scheduled for 
Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 
263, City Hall, San Francisco, California, has been cancelled. 



3 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



I DOCUMENTS DSPJ. 

AUG f 4 2C:i 

SAN FRANC/SCO 
P UBLIC LIBRARY 



J 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 2/1/01 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 

S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL, ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-4689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



41 Library 

100 I ai kin Street Govt Information Center 







[All Committees] 
. Government Document Section 

City and County of £an Francisco Majn Library 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee ~„~-~o* 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



Wednesday, August 22, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SEP - 5 200) 

SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBLIC LIBRARY 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 

AGENDA CHANGES 



Supervisor Leno requested that Item 10 be called first and continued to September 26, 2001. 



REGULAR AGENDA 



011436 [Official Advertising] 

Resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division of the Office of Contract Administration to negotiate and enter 
into a sole source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle to be the official newspaper of the City and County 
of San Francisco for the category of consecutive day official advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
2002. (Purchaser) 

8/1/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Judith Blackwell, Director, Office of Contract 
Administration; Michael Ward, Assistant Director of Purchasing, Purcliasing Division, Office of Contract 
Administration. 

Continued to September 26, 2001. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:43AM on 8/31/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



August 22, 2001 



011444 [Outreach Advertising] 

Resolution designating El Mensajero, El Latino and El Reportero to be outreach newspapers of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Hispanic/Latino community; designating the China Press, the Chinese Times 
and Asian Week to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco for the Chinese community; 
designating the San Francisco Bay View to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco for 
the African American community; designating San Francisco Spectrum, the Bay Area Reporter and San 
Francisco Bay Times to be outreach newspapers of the City and County of San Francisco for the 
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community; designating MO Magazine to be outreach newspaper of the 
City and County of San Francisco for the Southeast Asian community; designating Russian Life to be outreach 
newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco for the Russian community, designating Hokubei Mainichi 
to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco for the Japanese community, for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 2002. (Purchaser) 
8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Judith Blackwell, Director, Office of Contract 
Administration; Luis Espinosa, Senior Purchaser, Purchasing Division, Office of Contract Administration; 
Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; Ref Sanchez, California Newspaper Service Bureau; Theodore Lakey, 
Deputy City Attorney; Rolando Pasquali, Attorney, representing El Latino; Jose Del Castillo, publisher of El 
Mensajero; Clementina Garcia, El Latino; Carmen Ruiz, owner of El Latino; Michael Ward, Assistant 
Director of Purchasing, Purchasing Division, Office of Contract Administration. 
Continued to September 26, 2001. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 • Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011242 [Requiring situs and/or street name on recorded documents] 
Supervisor Yee 

Ordinance amending Article 12C of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Real Property Tax) by 
amending Section 1 102.1 thereto to require that every document pertaining to real property that is submitted for 
recordation show on the face of the document the commonly-known situs and/or street name and number of the 
real property described therein. 

7/2/01. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 8/1/2001. 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011405 [Appropriation, Police Department] 
Supervisors Leno, Daly 

Ordinance reallocating $1,200,000 retroactively from Police Department appropriations to the Fire Department 
to fund the cost of uniform firefighters for fiscal year 2000-01. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/3/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Han>ey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:43 AM on 8/31/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



August 22, 2001 



011376 [Reserved Funds, Mayor's Office of Community Development] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Mayor's Office of Community Development (2001 CDBG Block 
grant: File 010621, Resolution No. 324-01), in the amount of $9,256 to fund the proposed reclassifications of 
four Special Assistant positions. (Mayor) 
7/23/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pamela David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $9,256 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



01 1425 [Lease of Property] 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 27 1 2 Mission Street on behalf of the Department of 
Public Health, Community Mental Health Services. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact; District 9.) 

8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steve Legnitto, Acting Director of Property, 
Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department; Judith Schutzman, Department of Public Health; 
Linda Wong, Department of Public Health, Community Mental Health Services; Chaplain Earl Rogers, San 
Francisco Rescue Mission; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Health; Matthew 
Hymel, Controller's Office; Ben Rosenfield, Budget Director, Mayor's Budget Office. 
REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011176 [Lease of Property] 

Resolution authorizing the lease of real property at 100 Blanken Street, San Francisco, California, for the 
Department of Public Health. (Real Estate Department) 

(District 10) 

8/6/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steve Legnitto, Acting Director of Property, 
Real Estate Division, Administrative Sendees Department; Judith Schutzman, Department of Public Health; 
Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011481 [Contracting Out City Services] 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that assistance to certain victims of crime and 
education in community anti-street violence can be practically performed for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program by a private contract at a lower cost than similar work services performed by City 
and County employees. (District Attorney) 
8/8/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Han>ey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1 1 :43 AM on 8/31/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



August 22, 2001 



011426 [BART/SFIA On-Airport Project Development Agreement] 

Resolution approving Modification No. 1 to the BART/SFIA On-Airport Project Development Agreement, as it 
relates to the on- Airport potion of the BART to San Francisco Airport Extension project, which is by and 
between the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission ("SFIA"), and the 
Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART"). (Airport Commission) 
8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport; Michelle Hatata, 
Manager of Program Administration, West Bay Extension, Bay Area Rapid Transit District; Chaplain Earl 
Rogers, San Francisco Rescue Mission. 

Amended on page 1, line 4, by replacing "potion' with "portion." 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving Modification No. 1 to the BART/SFIA On-Airport Project Development Agreement, as it 
relates to the on-Airport portion of the BART to San Francisco Airport Extension project, which is by and 
between the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission ("SFIA"), and the 
Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART"). (Airport Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011445 [Approval of Amendment(s) to Design Agreement for the Moscone Center Expansion Project] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Administrative Services to execute amendment(s) to design agreement, 
increasing the amendment sum from $14,026,326.38 to $15,026,326.38. (Administrative Services Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/1/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
Speakers: None. Continued to September 26, 2001. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011499 [Setting San Francisco's 2001-2002 property tax rate and establishing passthrough rate for residential 
tenants] 
Mayor 

Ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for City and County purposes and establishing 
passthrough rate for residential tenants pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 2002. (Mayor) 

8/13/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the August 
22, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Matthew Hymel, Controller's Office. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:43 AM on 8/31/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



August 22, 2001 



011500 [Setting San Francisco's Unified School District's 2001-2002 property tax to be included in the City's 
overall property tax rate] 
Mayor 

Ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for San Francisco Unified School District's purposes 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. (Mayor) 

8/13/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the August 
22, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Matthew Hymel, Controller's Office. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011501 [Setting San Francisco Community College District's 2001-2002 property tax rate to be included in the 
City's overall property tax rate] 
Mayor 

Ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for San Francisco Community College District 
purposes for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. (Mayor) 

8/13/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the August 
22, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Matthew Hymel, Controller's Office. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011502 [Adjusting Appropriations - Art Commission] 
Mayor 

Ordinance amending the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, File Number 011041, 
Ordinance Number 170-01, adjusting appropriations to meet the requirements of the Art Commission pursuant 
to Charter Section 16.106(1). (Mayor) 
8/13/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Matthew Hymel, Controller's Office. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1 1 :43 AM on 8/31/01 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes August 22, 2001 



010845 [Dancehall Permits] 

Supervisors Daly, Gonzalez 

Ordinance deleting San Francisco Police Code Sections 1022 to 1029 to eliminate any restrictions on dances, 

except to require places where dances of more than 500 persons are held to provide free cool drinking water 

and amending San Francisco Fire Code Section 22 to require a public hearing. 

5/7/01 , ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Neighborhood Services and Parks Committee, expires on 6/6/2001 . 

6/19/01, TRANSFERRED to Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee. 

6/26/01 , CONTrNUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Daly; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Supervisor McGoldrick; 

Carol Roos, Legislative Analyst; Robert Garcia, Save Our Streets; Nick Fynn, Late Night Coalition; David Overdorf; Leslie Ayres; Phillip 

Faight, Union Square Association; Grant Davis, S. F. Line Dancers Association; Jeffrey Leibovitz; Sean Starbuck, Thump Radio Inc.; 

Gail Edwards; Bryan Dobson; Fred Hobson; Krishna; Lawrence Foard; Stephanie Tucker; Angelica Kuhl; Terrance Alan; Carlton Solle. 

Supervisor Newsom excused from committee due to conflict-of-interest. 

Continued to July 10,2001. 

7/10/01, CONTrNUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Sergeant Ann Mannix, SFPD; Sergeant William Coggan, SFPD; Ted Lakey, 

Deputy City Attorney; Phillip Faight; Kathleen Harrington, Golden Gate Restaurant Association; Linda Mjellem, Union Square 

Association; Leslie Ayers, SF Late Night Coalition; Robert Garcia, Save Our Streets; Krishna, SF Late Night Coalition; Leigh Ann 

Matsche, Union Square Business Improvement District; Starchild, Libertarian Party; David Overdorf; Stephanie Tucker, SF Late Night 

Coalition; Frederick Hobson; Jeff Page; Jeffrey Leibovitz. 

Supervisor Newsom excused from committee due to conflict-of-interest. 

Continued to July 24, 2001. 

7/23/01, CONTINUED. Supervisor Daly, seconded by Supervisor Leno moved to continued to July 30, 2001. 

7/30/01, CONTINUED. Supervisor Daly moved to continue to August 13, 2001. 

8/13/01, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 8/13/01 - Supervisor Daly presented an 

amendment of the whole bearing new title. 

8/13/01, RE-REFERRED to Finance Committee. Re-referred to Finance. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supennsor Daly; Sergeant William Coggan, Police Department, Legal 

Division; Gary Massetani, Assistant Chief, Fire Department; Dick Millet, Potrero Boosters; Ron Miguel, 

President, Planning Association for the Richmond; Frederick Hobson; David Overdorf; Terrance Alan, 

Chairman, San Francisco Late Night Coalition; John Wood, San Francisco Late Night Coalition; Chaplain 

Earl Rogers, San Francisco Rescue Mission; Jeffrey Leibovitz; Robert Garcia, Save Our Streets; Pastor 

Ralphel Gella, San Francisco Rescue Mission. 

Supervisors Gonzalez, Peskin and Leno added as co-sponsors. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance amending San Francisco Police Code Section 1023 to exempt dances and dancehalls from the need 
to obtain a dancehall permit if the location where the dance is being held has a place of entertainment permit 
and provides free drinking water. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 11:43 AM on 8/31/01 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



\o.AS 

7 




CITY AND COUNTY \*±M OF SAN FRANCISCO 

30ARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



August 16, 2001 



TO: -y Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

AUG 2 1 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 - File 01-1436 
Department: 

Items: 



Description: 



Department of Administrative Services, Office of Contract 
Administration, Purchasing Division 

Resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division of the 
Office of Contract Administration to negotiate and enter 
into a sole source contract for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 with 
the San Francisco Chronicle to be the City's official 
newspaper to provide Type 1 advertising which requires 
the newspaper to be printed at least five days per week, 
on two or more consecutive days. 

Proposition J, which was approved by the San Francisco 
voters in November of 1994, in part, changed the criteria 
by which the City selects a newspaper to publish the 
City's official advertising. The Purchasing Division 
advises that, under Proposition J, Section 2.81 of the 
Administrative Code was amended with respect to the 
criteria to be considered in evaluating bids submitted by 
newspapers that wish to be designated as the City's 
official advertising newspapers. Bidders are required to 
submit typeset samples and other documentation for 
evaluation purposes. The criteria used for evaluation of 
bids under Section 2.81 includes (1) the cost of advertising 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

in the newspaper (the newspaper which bids the lowest 
price per line for advertising receives additional points), 
(2) the level of circulation of the newspaper (the 
newspaper with the largest circulation receives additional 
points), (3) the cost of the newspaper to the general public 
(any newspaper with a majority of circulation that is free 
of charge to the general public receives additional points), 
(4) the ownership of the newspaper by a minority-owned, 
women-owned, or locally-owned business (newspapers 
which are owned by minority, women or locally-owned 
firms receive additional points), and (5) the newspaper's 
compliance with all contracting requirements under the 
City's Charter and the Administrative Code, according to 
Mr. Luis Espinoza of the Purchasing Division. 

The City's official advertising is divided into two 
categories: 

Type 1 - Advertisements for Two or More Consecutive 
Days: Official advertising which must be published on 
two or more consecutive days, and all official advertising 
which is required to be published in accordance with 
Section 2.103 of the Charter for special meetings of the 
Board of Supervisors and its standing or special 
committees. The official newspaper must publish at least 
5 days a week for Type 1 official advertising. 

Type 2 - Advertisements for Single or Non-consecutive 
Days : Official advertising, which must be published one 
time (other than one-time advertising related to special 
meetings for the Board of Supervisors and its standing 
and/or special committees) or more than one time but not 
more than three times per week for a specified number of 
weeks. The official newspaper must publish at least 3 
days a week for Type 2 official advertising. 

The City's contract for Type 1 official advertising with the 
San Francisco Examiner expired on June 30, 2001. 
According to Mr. Espinoza, in response to its Invitation 
for Bids on March 31, 2001, the Purchasing Division did 
not receive any bids for Type 1 official advertising. 
Because no bids were received for Type 1 official 
advertising, the Purchasing Division has not made a 
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding 
the award of the City's Type 1 official advertising for FY 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 






2001-2002. However, according to Mr. Espinoza, the San 
Francisco Chronicle contacted the Purchasing Division on 
May 3, 2001 in order to offer its services to provide for the 
City's Type 1 official advertising in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

This proposed resolution would authorize the Purchasing 
Division to negotiate and enter into a contract with the 
San Francisco Chronicle to provide Type 1 official 
advertising. 

As shown in the Attachment to this report in a 
memorandum of August 1, 2001 to the Clerk of the Board 
of Supervisors, the Purchasing Division reports that the 
San Francisco Chronicle would charge $8.42 per line of 
typeset for Type 1 consecutive day official advertising in 
FY 2001-2002, which is $5.96 more or 242.3 percent than 
the $2.46 charged in FY 2000-2001 by the San Francisco 
Examiner for Type 1 official advertising. For FY 2001- 
2002, the Purchasing Division reports that the total 
estimated annual cost for Type 1 official advertising, 
which would be provided by the San Francisco Chronicle 
if this legislation is approved, is $133,114 or $94,224 more 
than the cost for FY 2000-2001 of $38,890 charged by the 
San Francisco Examiner for Type 1 official advertising. 

Mr. Espinoza advises that the San Francisco Chronicle 
meets the Administrative Code requirements to be 
designated as the City's Type 1 official advertising 
newspaper. Such requirements include having a 
newspaper circulation of at least 50,000 copies per week, 
being published at least five days per week on two or 
more consecutive days, and being printed in San 
Francisco. However, according to Mr. Espinoza, the San 
Francisco Chronicle does not comply with Chapter 12B of 
the Administrative Code, pertaining to the City's Equal 
Benefits Ordinance. If the Board of Supervisors decides to 
authorize the Purchasing Division to negotiate and enter 
into a sole source contract with the San Francisco 
Chronicle to provide the City's Type 1 official advertising, 
then the Purchasing Division would request a waiver of 
the Chapter 12B Equal Benefits requirements from the 
Human Rights Commission in order to enter into a sole 
source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle, 
according to Mr. Espinoza. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



The Purchasing Division suggests that the proposed sole 
source contract with the Chronicle is a viable option 
because, as stated in the attached memorandum from the 
Purchasing Division, (a) this is an instance when no bids 
were received, (b) there are no other qualified newspapers 
that are in compliance with Chapter 12B and (c) having a 
Type 1 official advertising newspaper is essential to the 
City and its residents. 

1. As previously noted, the estimated costs for Type 1 
official advertising to be provided by the San Francisco 
Chronicle would be $133,114 in FY 2001-2002. Mr. 
Espinoza reports that the estimated cost for Type 2 
official advertising is $1,305,878 for FY 2001-2002. 
Therefore, the total estimated cost for Type 1 and Type 2 
official advertising for FY 2001-2002 would be $1,438,992. 

2. According Section 2.81-2(a) of the Administrative 
Code, the City is required to withhold 10 percent of the 
annual amounts paid for the City's Type 1 and Type 2 
official advertising and to designate such monies in the 
City's Outreach Advertising Fund (see Item 2, File 01- 
1444 of this August 22, 2001 report to the Finance 
Committee). 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



City and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 




Attachment 
Page 1 of 3 

Purchasing Department 

Judith A. Blackweil 
Director 



August 1,2001 



To: 



Through: 



From: 



Subject: 



Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Judith A. Blackweil 
Director of Purchasing 
Purchasing Department 

Michael D. Ward 

Assistant Director of Purchasing 

Purchasing Department 

Designating Official and Outreach Newspapers for FY 2001-2002 



The Purchasing Division is writing this letter in response to inquiries from members of the Finance Committee wit! 
regards to the designation of newspapers for official and outreach advertising services for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Official Advertising - Type 1 Consecutive Day 

Purchasing solicited but did not receive bids for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising. However, the San Franciscc 
Chronicle offered its services to the City at a bulk contract rate of $8.42 per line. 

The Chronicle meets the Administrative Code requirements for an official newspaper, including circulation of 
50,000 per week, consecutive day publication and is printed in the City. However, the Chronicle is not 
compliant with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

A sole source contract with the Chronicle is a viable option because this is an instance when no bids were 
received, there are no qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 12B and the contract is essential 
to the City and its residents. With regards to Chapter 12B, the Purchasing Division will request a waiver from 
the Human Rights Commission. 

The following is the estimated advertising costs for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertisine for FY2000-01 and 
FY200 1-2002. 

Chronicle 
Examiner Offer 

FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002 

Cost Per Line 
Estimated annual cost: 
Annual Cost Increase: 
Percent Increase: 



S2.46 


S8.42 


538,890 


5133,114 




S 94.224 




243% 



Letter to Gloria Young 

August 1,2001 

City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-6717 San Francisco CA 94102-4685 

Home Page: www.ci.sf.ca.us/purchase/ Recycled paper _ E-mail: Purchasing@ci.sf.ca. us 



Attachment 
Jease Z ot 3 



Page 2 

The contract rate of S2.46 per line in FY 2000-2001 was based on the Examiner circulation of 108,896, accordin 
to the Audit Report of September 30, 1999. The circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle for the 
period ending March 31, 2001 are All Day 527,466 and Sunday 540,074. 

The Chronicle's offer of S8.42 per line is a considerable saving off the open non-contract rate of S16.33 per line, 
rate of S8.42 per line is the equivalent of a bulk contract rate. 

It should be noted that the San Francisco Examiner also expressed interest in providing its services to the City. 
However, the Examiner is not printed in the city as required by Article EX of the Administrative Code and has no 
intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with the requirements 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit A, is the draft of a resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division to negotiate 
sole source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle. 



Outreach Advertising 






The Purchasing Division solicited bids for outreach advertising and received only four responsive bids - one fron 
Hispanic community and three from the Chinese community. 

Given the number of responsive bids received, only two communities mandated by Proposition J would have 
outreach advertising coverage in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In addition, non-Prop. J communities -requested by th< 
Board in Resolution No. 841-00, passed October 2, 2000- would not have outreach advertising coverage. These 
the Russian, Southeast Asian, Korean and Filipino communities. 

Given that the newspapers submitting responsive bids do not adequately serve all neighborhoods, the Board mig 
want to authorize additional outreach advertising. As proposed, the maximum estimated cost of cost outreach 
advertising for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be 2206,067. This amount depends on the number of outreach 
newspapers that will be authorized by the Board. The total estimated amount that will be available in the Outrea 
Advertising Fund in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is 2241,392. Should the Board elect to authorize the proposed 
additional advertising, community coverage would be as follows: 

Community Outreach Newspaper 

Hispanic/Latino: El Mensajero 

El Latino 
El Reportero 

Chinese China Press 

Chinese Times 
AsianWeek 

African American San Francisco Bay View 

Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexuaiyTransgender Spectrum 

Bay Area Reporter 
ST. Bay Times 

Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Pa?e3 



Fap J or 3 



Community Outreach Newspaper 

Russian Russian Life 

Southeast Asian Mo Magazine 

* Japanese Hokubei Mainichi 

* Not requested by the Board in Resolution No. 841-00. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit B is the draft of a resolution designating outreach advertising newspapers and 
authorizing the Purchasing Division to execute contracts with the designated periodicals. The Purchasing Division 
requests that this item be treated as an Amendment of the Whole and calendared for the Finance Committee meeting 
of August 8, 2001. 

On file, is a resolution (File No. 01-0867) designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Chinese community, and El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
2002. On 05/30/01, the Finance Committee continued this item. And on 07/18/01, the Committee again continued 
the item, to the Call of the Chair. 

The Purchasing Division's contact persons for File No. 01-0867 and the proposed Amendment of the Whole, and 
official advertising resolution are: 

Mike Ward 554-6740 

Luis Espinoza 554-6736 

Please, advise if the Board needs additional information before the Finance Committee or Full Board meeting. 
The Purchasing Division looks forward to reviewing this matter with the Board. 

Exhibits: 

A. Resolution - Official Advertising 

B. Resolution - Outreach Advertising 

cc Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 






Exhibit A 
Resolution 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 01-1444 

Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Administrative Services, Office of Contract 
Administration, Purchasing Division 

Resolution designating El Mensajero, El Latino and El 
Reportero to be outreach newspapers for the City's 
Hispanic/Latino community; designating the China Press, 
the Chinese Times and the Asian Week to be outreach 
newspapers for the City's Chinese community; 
designating the San Francisco Bay View to be the 
outreach newspaper for the City's African American 
community; designating the San Francisco Spectrum, the 
Bay Area Reporter and the San Francisco Bay Times to be 
outreach newspapers for the City's Gay/ 
Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community; designating 
Mo Magazine to be the outreach newspaper for the City's 
Southeast Asian community; designating the Russian Life 
to be the outreach newspaper for the City's Russian 
community; and designating the Hokubei Mainichi to be 
the outreach newspaper for the City's Japanese 
community, for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Proposition J, which was approved by San Francisco 
voters in November of 1994, provided, in part, for an 
Outreach Advertising Fund to be established for the 
purpose of the City placing "outreach advertising" or 
weekly notices of items pertaining to governmental 
operations in periodicals selected to reflect the diversity in 
race and sexual orientation of the population of the City. 
Outreach advertisements include, but are not limited to, 
information about issues that are being reviewed by the 
Board of Supervisors and that directly affect the public. 
Pursuant to Proposition J and in accordance with Section 
2.81-2(a) of the Administrative Code, the City is required 
to withhold 10 percent of the annual amounts paid for the 
City's Type 1 and Type 2 official advertising and to 
deposit these monies into the Outreach Advertising Fund. 

1. Since the passage of Proposition J, approved by the 
voters in November of 1994, bid prices are only one of 
several factors evaluated and considered when 
determining the designated outreach newspapers. Other 
factors include (a) the size of the newspaper's circulation 
area, (b) the newspaper's cost to the public, (c) ownership 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

of the newspaper by a minority-owned, women-owned, or 
locally-owned business, (d) whether the newspaper is 
printed in the language of the outreach community, and 
(e) the newspaper's compliance with all contracting 
requirements under the City's Charter and the 
Administrative Code, according to Luis Espinoza of the 
Purchasing Division. Proposition J requires the 
Purchasing Division to recommend to the Board of 
Supervisors the newspapers with the highest total point 
scores in each outreach community. 

2. According to Mr. Espinoza, the Purchasing Division 
recommends that the Board of Supervisors designate the 
China Press and El Mensajero to provide outreach 
advertising for FY 2001-2002. The China Press received 
the highest score of the three responsive bids from 
newspapers seeking to provide outreach advertising to the 
Chinese community. El Mensajero was the only 
responsive bidder of the three bids from newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising to the 
Hispanic/Latino community. In addition to recommending 
the China Press and El Mensajero, the Purchasing 
Division suggests that the Board of Supervisors "might 
want to authorize additional outreach advertising" (see 
Attachment I, provided by the Purchasing Division). The 
Purchasing Division suggests that such additional 
outreach advertising could be achieved by designating the 
11 other newspapers that submitted bids to the 
Purchasing Division to provide outreach advertising for 
FY 2001-2002. Attachment II, provided by the Purchasing 
Division, contains bid data and point calculation 
information for the 2 newspapers which the Purchasing 
Division recommends be designated to provide outreach 
advertising and the 11 other newspapers which the 
Purchasing Division suggests could be designated by the 
Board of Supervisors to provide outreach advertising for 
FY 2001-2002. 

3. As noted in Attachment II, 4 of the 13 newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising submitted bids 
that were considered by the Purchasing Division to be 
responsive. According to Mr. Espinoza, El Mensajero, 
serving the Hispanic/Latino community, and the China 
Press, the Chinese Times, and the Asian Week, all 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



serving the Chinese community, fully comply with all City 
contracting requirements under the Charter and the 
Administrative Code and qualify with their responsive 
bids to be designated to provide for the City's outreach 
advertising. 

4. As noted in Attachment II, 9 of the 13 newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising submitted bids 
that were considered to be non-responsive by the 
Purchasing Division. According to Mr. Espinoza, these 9 
newspapers do not qualify to be designated to provide 
outreach advertising for the following reasons: (a) 
Hokubei Mainichi and Mo Magazine do not comply with 
the requirements of Chapter 12B, pertaining to Equal 
Benefits requirements of the Administrative Code, and 
Russian Life does not comply with the requirements of 
Chapters 12B and 12D, pertaining to the 
Minority/Women/Local Business Enterprise Utilization 
requirements of the Administrative Code, (b) the San 
Francisco Bay View, the Bay Area Reporter and the San 
Francisco Bay Times are not printed in San Francisco, as 
required by Administrative Code, Article IX, Section 2.80- 
1, (c) El Latino, the San Francisco Spectrum and the San 
Francisco Bay Times are not published weekly, as 
required by Administrative Code, Article IX, Section 2.80- 
1, and (d) El Reportero, the San Francisco Spectrum and 
Hokubei Mainichi submitted their bids late. 

5. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's 
Office, the Board of Supervisors is authorized to and has 
previously designated newspapers to provide outreach 
advertising even though such newspapers do not comply 
with all contracting requirements under the City's 
Charter and the Administrative Code. 

6. The following seven newspapers were designated as 
outreach advertising newspapers for FY 2000-2001: El 
Reportero and El Latino for the Hispanic/Latino 
community; the Chinese Times and Asian Week for the 
Chinese community; the San Francisco Bay View for the 
African American community; and the San Francisco 
Spectrum and the San Francisco Bay Times for the 
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender community. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. As stated in the attached letter dated August 1, 2001 
from Ms. Judith Blackwell of the Purchasing Division to 
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment I), the 
maximum estimated cost of outreach advertising for 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be $206,067 if the Board of 
Supervisors were to designate all 13 newspapers which 
submitted bids to provide outreach advertising. 
Attachment III, provided by the Purchasing Division, 
includes a suggested outreach advertising budget for 
$206,067 for the 13 newpapers which submitted bids. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Pa°;e 1 of 3 



City and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 




Purchasing Department 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director 



August 1,2001 



To: 



Through: 



From: 



Subject: 



Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director of Purchasing 
Purchasing Department 

Michael D. Ward 

Assistant Director of Purchasing 

Purchasing Department 

Designating Official and Outreach Newspapers for FY 2001-2002 



The Purchasing Division is writing this letter in response to inquiries from members of the Finance Committee with 
regards to the designation of newspapers for official and outreach advertising services for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Official Advertising - Type 1 Consecutive Day 

Purchasing solicited but did not receive bids for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising. However, the San Francisco 
Chronicle offered its services to the City at a bulk contract rate of S8.42 per line. 

The Chronicle meets the Administrative Code requirements for an official newspaper, including circulation of 
50,000 per week, consecutive day publication and is printed in the City. However, the Chronicle is not 
compliant with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

A sole source contract with the Chronicle is a viable option because this is an instance when no bids were 
received, there are no qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 12B and the contract is essential 
to the City and its residents. With regards to Chapter 12B, the Purchasing Division will request a waiver from 
the Human Rights Commission. 

The following is the estimated advertising costs for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising for FY2000-01 and 
FY200 1-2002. 

Chronicle 
Examiner Offer 

FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002 



Cost Per Line 
Estimated annual cost: 
Annual Cost Increase: 
Percent Increase: 



S2.46 


S8.42 


S38.890 


5133,114 




S 94.224 




243% 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-6717 San Francisco CA 94102^685 



Attachment I 
Paee 2 of 3 



Page 2 

The contract rate of S2.46 per line in FY 2000-2001 was based on the Examiner circulation of 108,896, accordin; 
to the Audit Report of September 30, 1999. Tne circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle for the 
period ending March 31, 2001 are All Day 527,466 and Sunday 540,074. 

The Chronicle's offer of S8.42 per line is a considerable saving off the open non-contract rate of S16.33 per line. A. 
rate of $8.42 per line is the equivalent of a bulk contract rate. 

It should be noted that the San Francisco Examiner also expressed interest in providing its services to the City. 
However, the Examiner is not printed in the city as required by Article LX of the Administrative Code and has nc 
intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with the requirements f 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit A, is the draft of a resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division to negotiate 
sole source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Outreach Advertising 

The Purchasing Division solicited bids for outreach advertising and received only four responsive bids - one fror th 
Hispanic community and three from the Chinese community. 

Given the number of responsive bids received, only two communities mandated by Proposition J would have 
outreach advertising coverage in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In addition, non-Prop. J communities -requested by th( 
Board in Resolution No. 841-00, passed October 2, 2000- would not have outreach advertising coverage. These e 
the Russian, Southeast Asian, Korean and Filipino communities. 

Given that the newspapers submitting responsive bids do not adequately serve all neighborhoods, the Board migl 
want to authorize additional outreach advertising. As proposed, the maximum estimated cost of cost outreach 
advertising for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be $206,067. This amount depends on the number of outreach 
newspapers that will be authorized by the Board. The total estimated amount that will be available in the Outrea. 
Advertising Fund in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is $241,392. Should the Board elect to authorize the proposed 
additional advertising, community coverage would be as follows: 

Community Outreach Newspaper 

Hispanic/Latino: El Mensajero 

El Latino 
El Reportero 

Chinese China Press 

Chinese Times 
AsianWeek 

African American San Francisco Bay View 

Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender Spectrum 

Bay Area Reporter 
S.F. Bay Times 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Page 3 

13 



Attachment I 
rage J ot 3 



Community Outreach Newspaper 

Russian Russian Life 

Southeast Asian Mo Magazine 

* Japanese Hokubei Mainichi 

* Not requested by the Board in Resolution No. 841-00. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit B is the draft of a resolution designating outreach advertising newspapers and 
authorizing the Purchasing Division to execute contracts with the designated periodicals. The Purchasing Division 
requests that this item be treated as an Amendment of the Whole and calendared for the Finance Committee meeting 
of August 8, 2001. 

On file, is a resolution (File No. 01-0867) designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Chinese community, and El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and 
County of San Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
2002. On 05/30/01, the Finance Committee continued this item. And on 07/18/01, the Committee again continued 
the item, to the Call of the Chair. 

The Purchasing Division's contact persons for File No. 01-0867 and the proposed Amendment of the Whole, and 
official advertising resolution are: 

Mike Ward 554-6740 

Luis Espinoza 554-6736 

Please, advise if the Board needs additional information before the Finance Committee or Full Board meeting. 
The Purchasing Division looks forward to reviewing this matter with the Board. 

Exhibits: 

A. Resolution - Official Advertising 

B. Resolution - Outreach Advertising 

cc Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



Exhibit A 

Resolution 

14 



Attachment li 
Page 1 ot Z 



II 1 ; <° 
1 1 ' 'S 1 

1 i i ! :«! I«| « 

i 1 I !sl :cr>{ 
1 1 ! is: lu-i 
1 ! i iSH 


Li i i i 

SI i"! ; i i N !° c 

Mil 1 1 

II ! 1 i i I 1 1 


J Li LI 

1 1 ' i 

|l 

1 ! ! II 


1 1 1 UsiSlil |ilsl | 1 I I | 

r\ SalSlii i|U! i [".si | 

c!5.:3i l§;2j j*»| 

1 1 ! m\* [ M hill 


! is! I si i 

1 isl !? i 

1 ;gi F S 

! | ! ||i If " 
1 ! iU |1 

1 . ■ <z\ i rai 
1 l ! >o| !Ol| 


L ! 1 i 1 I | | 

l°.| !»! 1 ! icNiaiol la! 

2 ! i i 1 i i j ! 1 1 

i : 1 1 1 I 1 

1 5 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i ! 


i ' 1 i 1 i ! -i i 1 1 1 

*a 1 Ms 

=j I iSS Mp 1" ! 

■ 'CM! • : £: =. 1 • -' c. ' 
1 ' i ! 1 ;=:=.! i i 5 ! 2: j 

Mi i h 1 ! i i?i I 


Ml 

i 1 

! 

i i i ; 


1 








Ill 

31 

i i 

i 
i i 


I o 

1! S 

i o. "■ 

r 5 


J 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 

oi| :«5 ]ii i lo 

lilmilii 




o 


lo 


i 
i 
i 


■ b' ! _ ! >^ I 1 
&i±:z l = p 

2| m: t; j £j a. 


Lis 

T i 

1 i i 








J 

^ 


1=1 

■I fQ 


l i 

i - 

ra *- 

CO 


1 1 

o 

1 " 


I 


! 
i 


CM CM 


o 
1 


i 


o 
pi 




o 

12 

in 




Ukl 

■ 2 I C0 

ill 




i 


1 i 

lo 
© o 

1 












a) 

c ■ 
.9 

< 


o 








CM O 




o 




Ivn 
1" 

I CO 




> 

a 
a. 

cc: 




lfi° 

lis 

1*5. ■ 

£ & 
|a 5 


CO 

>^ "T* 1 
tN 
l**l 


B 

_o 

3 

> 

LU 

S 


m 
ci 
03 

a 

CJ1 

e 

-z. 

a 
a. 

o 

B. 
Tj 

"2 
o 
u 

a 

a 


in 

a 

r-> 
en 
ct 

6 

"3 

vi 

o 
a. 

a 

a. 
u 

rs 

C 
O 

o 


en 


O 


E 

l- o 
o P 
w in 

c 

o 


o 

<°. o 






CM CM 


o to 




o 




o 
iq 




o 

e 
o 

5 




La 

lis 

° Lc 


I 1 

sjS 

Iff 

1 I 


r 

> 

< 

"5 
m 

03 




1 ° 

IO 


o 

2 ° 






O CM 


o m 




o 




o 




J* 

c 
o 

K 




iJa 

life 

=1 ra 

o! 2 

1 1° 


E 
o 

"c 

CL 

X 
1 2 


~3 
O 


_ 


lo 

O 

S o 

c ">. 

o c 

IU1 

1 


o 
q 
o 






~~ 


o m 




a 




o 
in 




a 




U|a 

si" 
«i m 

ii|~ 
I|l& 

"ju 


lo 
5 

r 

! if 








! 
i 

! 


N « 8 

i m 1 i ro 1 - 
1^1 E 
II 1 I 


a 

q m 

1 1 


1 
i | 

i 

1 ! 


1 | 

1 i 


cm m 

1 








In 

r 

l«r 

ir 

1 


1 i 


1 CD 

_> 

5 

c 
o 

jz 


.1 
S 
?| 

1 


IJa ' 

|!is 

ii.r. 

i j gj a. 

13'lD 

i'li 


l \i 
Ji It 

»2 IS" 

Is hi 




1 
1 

ill 


! | ! s | 

Ml] i 

i is r 


1 i 

lo 1 
\^". i *n 

r i 
1 i 


I|l|l 

1 IcmIcm 
! 1 | | 


1 

i lm 


I !>! is; | 3 io| 
1 1 |£:-- ; 5 IfH 

|5| I ;-! gi-S!"gi !-sp 

1 lifil! i 5 !c| 


I i i I if 
1*181 I |S 

I i 1 ! ii 




|| 

! j 

1 


i ' 
i 


i ! 1 

! 

i ! 

i £ 

o 

1 1 

' < 


Circulation 

Newspaper CosI lo Public 

Local/Minorlly/Wonian 
Ownership (Prop. J) 
Locally Owned/Operaled 


1 c 

|£ 

!« j g 

I II 

II '1 
I 1 J 


1 

1 

li 

1 

1 


la 

16 

ILUl 

!1 

UJ 

|m 
li 


i | 

Lj 

|Ol 
lo 
|« 

N 

IS 

II 


1 ! ! 

j 

i«| i 

CO 

!2| 
iffl 

1 1 


j i ! 

i ! 
I 1 ' 

1 
I 
! 


1 1 1 | |f 

i!J | i 

lO'Ol CO 

io 1 ; r 
,M .-=I 1 1 = 
>- 1 B 

|tj si h= 
£lu5| 1 " 

sls || 



15 



Page 2 of 2 



I ! 

I ! 

I I 



1 i 

j II 

' i ! 



! I 
i i 



III! 



I i 
! ! 



II!! 
I I ' I I 

II 

Ml 



1 ! ! 

i i i 



! ! 



i i 



i i 



i ! 



! I 



> 



i ! ! 



i i 



! I ! 



i i 



! ! 



i I 

i | 



i i i 



i ! 
i i 



i i 



112 
mm 



unl i o 



li 



I l 
i ! 



l oi — '~L2 

| Q.I CD I T O 

Sll 

S3 



I 



I- 1 



\3\ 



I ! ! 



j i. 

11—19 "5 

ill 
















IO 












a 












L 




■ 









1-=; !»! 2! = 



iisa* -f 



o ° 






o c 




I< 


•? ra 


~UJ 










2 OT 




o n 


— S 

w 3 


7 K 


O o 






^ c 




o w 


"5 5 


a a. 


<fl Jij 




, i 


5) C 


— O 




a -a 


f- Z 






o ( — 






5 



16 



Attachment III 



1 


Outreach Advertising Services 




Estimated Cost 


Fiscal Year 2001-2002 






! 




Ave. No. Bid 


Estimated 






Lines Price 


Cost for 




FY 2000-01 Per Line 


FY 2001-02 




Hispanic 




E! Reportero 1 8,009 j 1.60 


$28,814 




El Latino 9,244! 1.50! 


$13,866 




El Mensajero 13,627*! 2.45 


$33,387 


New Contract 






Chinese 




China Press 9,012**! 1-88 


$16,943 


New Contract 


AsianWeek 14,124! 2.03 


$28,672 




Chinese Times 


3,900: 1.87 


$7,292 












Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sex/Transgender 






Spectrum 


4,776 


2.00 


$9,552 




Bay Reporter 5,459*** 


1.88 


$10,263 


New Contract 


S.F.Bay Times 6,142 


3.95 


$24,263 




! ! 




African American 






San Francisco Bay View 3,897 


1.80 


$7,015 




I 








Vietnamese 






Mo Magazine **** 


$3,744 


New Contract 






Russian 




Russian Life ****| 


$3,536 


New Contract 








Japanese 


Hokubei Mainichi ****l 


$18,720 


! New Contract 






Total All Communities 


i $206,067 




j 


, I | 


• The average number of lines used is the average for the Hispanic community. 


"* The average number of lines used is the average for the Chinese community. 


**" The average number of lines used is the average for the Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transge 


nder community 




**** Calculation is based en the Quoted cost per ad x 52 ads per year 



Source: Purchasing Division 



17 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item-3-File 01-1242 

Department: Assessor/Recorder's Office 






Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Ordinance amending Article 12C of Part III of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Real Property Transfer Tax) by 
amending Section 1102.1. 

Ordinance amending Article 12C of Part III of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Real Property Transfer Tax) by 
amending Section 1102.1 requiring that every document 
pertaining to real property that is submitted for recordation 
show on the face of the document the commonly-known situs 1 
and /or street name and number (i.e. street address) of the 
real property described therein. The inclusion of the 
commonly known situs and /or street name and number on 
the face of the document would be in addition to the 
Assessor/Recorder's parcel number that currently appears on 
real property recording documents. 2 

1. According to Mr. Frederick Garcia of the Assessor/ 
Recorder's Office, the proposed ordinance would have no 
fiscal impact on the property recording process. 

2. Mr. Garcia also notes that inclusion of the commonly 
known situs would reduce the incidence of recording errors 
when incorrect Assessor/Recorder's Parcel Numbers are 
recorded. According to Mr. Garcia, such errors may 
incorrectly assign parcel ownership or identify the wrong 
parcel in a real estate transaction. Mr. Garcia states further 
that the inclusion of the commonly known situs would also 
help expedite the property recordation process by enabling 
property appraisers to locate parcels more easily for the 
purpose of completing property appraisals. 

3. According to George Putris, the Tax Administrator of the 
Treasurer/Tax Collector's Office, the proposed ordinance 
would also be a benefit to the Tax Collector in assisting the 
Tax Collector to verify that real property transactions are 



1 Situs refers to the actual street address of the parcel whereas the same parcel can have a different 
mailing address associated with it. 

2 The Assessor/Recorder's Parcel Number consists of a block and lot number assigned to a parcel of 
real property. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



linked to the correct property owner for the purpose of 
property tax collection. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 01-1405 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Police Department 
Fire Department 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance reappropriating 
$1,200,000 retroactively from the FY 2000-2001 Police 
Department budget to the FY 2000-2001 Fire Department 
budget to fund the cost of uniform firefighters. 

$1,200,000 

Unexpended General Fund monies appropriated to the FY 
2000-2001 Police Department budget. 

The Police Department's FY 2000-2001 budget included 
$1,200,000 for an annual rent payment to the Treasure 
Island Development Authority (TIDA) for a sublease of 
facilities at Treasure Island to be used for Police training 
activities. File 01-0944 was a proposed resolution to 
approve the sublease agreement between TIDA and the 
Police Department retroactive to July 1, 2000, the 
beginning of FY 2000-2001. However, that sublease 
agreement was tabled by the Finance Committee at the 
Finance Committee meeting of July 25, 2001. 

Because that sublease agreement was tabled, the Police 
Department does not have authorization to make the 
$1,200,000 rent payment to TIDA and such funds are now 
surplus to the Police Department's FY 2000-2001 budget. 
According to Chief Assistant Controller Matthew Hymel, 
TIDA's loss of the $1,200,000 in budgeted rent revenue for 
FY 2000-2001 caused a deficit in the TIDA budget. In 
order to balance the TIDA budget, the Controller 
previously withheld $1,200,000 of a $3,397,191 work 
order payment due to the Fire Department from TIDA for 
Fire suppression services during FY 2000-2001. However, 
that action in turn created a budget deficit in the FY 
2000-2001 Fire Department budget of $1,200,000 since 
the Fire Department's FY 2000-2001 budget was balanced 
on the basis of receiving a reimbursement of $1,200,000 in 
revenues for services performed for TIDA. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would transfer 
the $1,200,000 budgeted for rent in the Police 
Department's FY 2000-2001 budget to the Fire 
Department in order to balance the Fire Department's FY 
2000-2001 budget. As previously noted, the $1,200,000 is 
no longer needed by the Police Department since the 
Police Department will not be paying rent to TIDA for 
training facilities at TIDA. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-1376 



Department: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 
Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Hearing to consider the release of $9,256 in reserved 
funds for the upward reclassification of four Special 
Assistant positions in the Mayor's Office of Community 
Development and the Mayor's Office of Housing. 

$9,256 

Community Development Block Grant funds previously 
allocated and reserved by the Board of Supervisors. 

According to Mr. Roger Sanders of MOCD, in April of 
2001, the Board of Supervisors allocated $4,721,312 for 
Program Administration of the Community Development 
Block Grants for FY 2001-2002. Program Administration 
funds are allocated among six City Departments, 
including the Controller's Office, the MOCD, the MOH, 
the City Attorney's Office, the Human Rights Commission 
and the Planning Department. Mr. Sanders states that 
$9,256 of the Program Administrative funds for MOCD 
and MOH were reserved pending submission of job 
descriptions for four Special Assistant positions that were 
going to be reclassified into upgraded positions for FY 
2001-2002. Mr. Sanders advises that the subject positions 
are currently filled. 

If the proposed resolution is approved, the subject four 
Special Assistant positions will be reclassified as follows: 



Previous Classification 

1366, Special Assistant VII 
1369, Special Assistant X 
1372, Special Assistant XIII 
Total 



New Classification 

1052, Business Analyst 
1370, Special Assistant XI 
1373, Special Assistant XIV 



FTE 

1.0 
2.0 
L0 
4.0 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. Sanders, during the past year 
program needs have changed and current staff have 
either been given increased responsibilities or assigned 
tasks that have required additional skills or both. Mr. 
Sanders advises that these four Special Assistant 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Special Assistant 
Classifications 

1366, Step 4 to 1052, Step 1 
1369, Step 5 to 1370, Step 4 
1369, Step 5 to 1370, Step 4 
1372, Step 5 to 1373, Step 4 
Totals 



positions are being reclassified to more accurately reflect 
the increased level of skills and responsibilities. 

Attachment I, provided by Mr. Sanders, contains job 
descriptions for the subject three Special Assistant 
positions and one 1052 Business Analyst position. 
Generally, the 1372 to 1373 reclassification reflects an 
upgrade in responsibilities from a Loan Project Specialist 
to a Loan Project Manager, according to Mr. Sanders. 
According to Mr. Sanders, the increased responsibilities of 
a Loan Project Manager over a Loan Project Specialist 
include: supervisory responsibility over loan program 
staff; training and support to build program capacity 
among City funded nonprofit agencies; and oversight of 
two new programs — the Bayview Business Resource 
Center and the Capital Access project. Mr. Sanders 
advises that the proposed reclassification of the other 
three positions is a result of new tasks assigned that 
require additional skills for program compliance analyses 
and review. Attachment II, provided by the Department of 
Human Resources (DHR) dated August 9, 2001 and 
August 13, 2001 compares existing tasks with new tasks, 
by classification, for the subject four positions. 

2. The proposed release of reserved funds in the amount 
of $9,256 for the period of July 1, 2001 through June 30, 
2002, would fund the annual pay differential between the 
existing and proposed new classifications of the subject 
four positions as follows: 

Current Proposed Annual 



Annual Annual Salary Percentage 

Salary Salary Increase Increase Department 

$49,764 $53,794 $4,030 8.1 MOCD 

65,364 67,002 1,638 2.5 MOCD/MOH 

65,364 67,002 1,638 2.5 MOH 

80.262 82.212 1.950 2,4 MOCD 

$260,754 $270,010 $9,256 3.5 



As indicated in the above table, the proposed 
reclassifications of the subject positions would result in a 
total increased annual salary cost of $9,256. Mr. Sanders 
advises that if the proposed release of reserved funds is 
approved by the Finance Committee, the proposed 
reclassifications would be retroactive to July 1, 2001. If 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



the reserved funds are not released by the Finance 
Committee, the employees would not be awarded the 
upward reclassifications. The cost of the increased 
salaries between the top step of the existing positions and 
top step of the proposed positions is $30,992 plus $4,649 
in Mandatory Fringe Benefits for a total increased cost of 
$35,641 annually at the top step. 

3. As noted above, Attachment II, provided by the 
Department of Human Resources (DHR) dated August 9, 
2001 and August 13, 2001, compares the existing tasks 
with the new tasks, by classification for the four subject 
positions. As shown in Attachment II, DHR is 
recommending approval of the upward reclassification of 
the four subject positions as follows: (1) 1.0 FTE 1052 
Business Analyst position; (2) 2.0 FTE 1370 Special 
Assistant positions, which are exempt under Charter 
Section 10.104-1; and, (3) 1.0 FTE 1373 Special Assistant 
position, which is also exempt under Charter Section 
10.104-1. With regard to the later three positions, these 
positions will be reclassified from one Special Assistant 
classification to another Special Assistant classification. 
However, Ms. Alexandra Luong from DHR advises that in 
order for the 1366 Special Assistant VII to occupy a non- 
Special Assistant classification, namely a 1052 Business 
Analyst, the incumbent must participate in the civil 
service exam process. The incumbent must submit an 
employment application and if the incumbent meets the 
minimum qualifications, DHR will put the incumbent's 
name on an employment register (list of qualified 
applicants). Ms. Luong advises that DHR has determined 
that the incumbent meets the minimum qualifications for 
class 1052 Business Analyst position. Upon request from 
the Mayor's Office, an employment register will be 
referred by DHR to the Department in order to conduct 
further selection processes. 

Originally, when this request for release of funds was 
made to the Board of Supervisors, the MOCD and MOH 
had not requested approval of the proposed 
reclassifications from DHR. Based on an inquiry from the 
Budget Analyst, the Departments requested DHR 
approval. Mr. Sanders advises that he thought he needed 
to have funding approval for the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

reclassifications from the Board of Supervisors first before 
seeking approval from DHR for the reclassification of the 
four subject positions. 

4. Attachment III is a memorandum dated August 14, 
2001, from Mr. Sanders advising that the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development has 
approved the Community Development Block Grant 
budget, which includes the pending upward 
reclassification of the four subject Special Assistant 
positions in the Program Administration budget. This 
memorandum from Mr. Sanders also contains an 
explanation for the widespread use of exempt Special 
Assistant positions in MOCD and MOH. 

5. According to Mr. Sanders, presently MOCD has a total 
of 42 positions, including 33 Special Assistants, and MOH 
has a total of 30 positions, including 25 Special 
Assistants. In Attachment III, Mr. Sanders advises that 
all Special Assistant positions are exempt. 

6. Since the Board of Supervisors has directed the DHR 
provide further reports on reclassifications of Special 
Assistants positions and the appropriateness of the 
exempt status for exempt Special Assistant positions, the 
Budget Analyst considers approval of the proposed 
upward reclassification of the four Special Assistant 
positions to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed release of reserved funds in the 

amount of $9,256 for the upward reclassification of the 
four Special Assistant positions in MOCD and MOH is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
25 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 4 



Mayor's Office of Community Development 
Job Description: Class 1052 IS Business Analyst 

This position in the Mayor's Office of Community Development is responsible for 
assisting in the development and integration of network driven computer software 
applications and on-going electronic collection and distribution of information to staff, 
Community Development Block Grant sub-recipients and to the general public. 



% 

Time 


Task 


15 


Provide technical assistance to management and staff. Troubleshoot software 
problems through telephone and in-person support. 


20 


Monitor and maintain computer and telecommunications equipment. Install, 
convert and test systems. Install, maintain and upgrade hardware and 
peripherals. Assist Mayor's Office MIS coordinator in network management 
and coordination. 


15 


Assist in the development and management of customized software 
applications. Analyze user needs and design or assist in the design of interface 
applications between systems, i.e., embed database information to create 
standardized grants and contracts. Interface with program and technical staff to 
describe, define and communicate needs. 


10 


Analyze needs, cost-benefits, and feasibility of new applications. Assist 
technical staff in providing estimates to other departments regarding data wiring 
projects. 


5 


Develop standardized reports for program management and/or database 
management. 


5 


Analyze work processes; write and develop customized applications to 
streamline routine tasks, i.e., electronic time sheets 


5 


Analyze data processing needs; write specifications for application 
development; write procedures and documentation. 


10 


Coordinate the electronic distribution of MOCD information. 


5 


Provide technical assistance to Community Based Organizations. 


10 


Other duties as assigned. 







MINIMUM SKILLS 

Undergraduate degree in business, social sciences, or related field required (Math or 
Computer Science degree desirable). General information management skills required. 
Demonstrated computer literacy with significant working knowledge of Microsoft Office 
applications required. Working understanding of Novel network administration 
required. Minimum 3 years in MIS application development environment required. 
Experience in the development of sequel server applications highly desirable. Candidates 
should have experience in problem solving in a computer driven environment. Ability to 
communicate computer concepts is critical to success in this position. 



26 



; My r s Of c Con 



; 4 1 52523 ' 



Attachment I 
Pape 2 of 4 



Mayor's Office of Community Development/Mayor's Office of Housing 
Job Description: Class 1370 Housing Program Manager 

This position oversees the planning and implementation of a variety of single family housing 
programs and policy. This involves the creation and execution of policy and procedures 
designed to protect housing affordability through direct loan subsidy, tax credit and price 
restricted units. Responsibilities include work with non-profit housing agencies, lenders and 
housing developers in both the private and public sectors. 



DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 



% 

Time 


Task 


30 


Negotiates, monitors and executes inclusionary requirements with developers, 
agents, and owners in resale transactions. 


20 


Prepares loan documents or secondary recording instruments for purposes of 
loan processing and insuring compliance with restriction guidelines. 


10 


Reviews grant proposals and issues and reviews RFPs. Providing ongoing 
monitoring or work programs and expenditures for non profit housing 
corporations, participating lenders and private contractors. 


10 


Works in partnership with non-profit housing agencies and lenders to provide 
counseling and educational services to low and moderate income households. 


10 


Provides direct outreach and education to the public for single family programs 
(DALP, MCC, RMCC, City Second, Inclusionary and Lead Hazard Reduction). 
Includes participation in citywide and community based fairs and events. 


5 


Prepares training materials, guideline manuals and program forms required in 
program administration. 


5 


Works closely with single family team and team leader to develop new 
programs targeting low and moderate income households. 


5 


Works closely with compliance team and team leader to develop and execute 
policy with regard to inclusionary zoning policy. 


3 


Represents MOH before interagency committees, boards and commissions. 


2 


Other duties as assigned. 



MINIMUM SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS 

Undergraduate degree in related field, e.g. real estate, business or public administration, or related field required. 
Minimum of five years experience in the field of real estate finance or bousing program acfrninistration (public, for- 
profit or non-profit) including three years of experience in housing finance or mortgage loan analysis or contract 
administration. Familiarity with loan underwriting, construction, administration and requirements of state and 
federal housing programs. Demonstrated computer literacy with working knowledge of work processing, 
spreadsheet and communications software. Ability to work with irrinimum supervision in a team environment and 
demonstrate effective oral and written communication skills with developers, property owners, community 
organizations, tenants and other public and private organization with sensitive 



27 



i-tAM;rvtyrs Ofc Comm Dev 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 4 



Mayor's Office of Housing 

Job Description: Class 1370 Housing Compliance Manager 



The position administers requirements for a variety of compliance requirements for MOH 
activities, including contract procurement, AA/EEO and City equal opportunity requirements, 
local and Section 3 hiring and contracting, environmental and historic preservation reviews, 
accessibility standards, fair housing, relocation, lead hazard management and prevailing wages. 

Duties and Responsibilities 



% Time 


Task 


30 


Review MOH projects and activities to ensure ongoing compliance with federal, 
state and local requirements applicable to those activities. 


20 


Act as principal MOH liaison on compliance matters with other regulatory agencies, 
including HUD, The State Historic Preservation Office, the City Human Rights 
Commission, the Planning Department, and the Housing Authority. 


15 


Investigate instances of possible noncompliance and prepare recommendations for 
management on possible courses of action to come into compliance. 


15 


Establish procedures and checklists for use by MOH staff for project management 
and approvals. 


10 


Provide training and technical assistance to developers, other City departments and 
MOH staff regarding compliance and contracting issues. 


5 


Advise management on compliance policy issues and pending legislation. 


5 


Participate in preparing required reports for the Board of Supervisors, HUD and 
other agencies. 



Minimum skills and qualifications: 

Bachelor's degree required in related field, e.g. real estate, planning, public administration, 
economics, etc. Minimum of five years experience in housing development, real estate finance, 
or housing program administration (public, for-profit or non-profit), including a minimum of two 
years experience in housing program administration. Familiarity with program compliance 
oversight and monitoring, including federal contracting requirements and local requirements 
comparable to those of San Francisco. Knowledge of and experience with word processing, 
spreadsheet and database management systems. Ability to work with minimum supervision in a 
team environment and to handle detail-oriented work. Ability to communicate effectively and 
sensitively, both orally and in writing, with a broad variety of people and agencies. Ability to 
work with developers, contractors, property owners, community organizations and tenants in 
carrying out City housing programs. 



9 a 



lAM;Wyrs Ofc Con 



>2523 l 1 



Attachment I 
Pas;e 4 of 4 



Mayor's Office of Community Development 

Job Description: Class 1373 Special Assistant XIV, Loan Project Manager 

This position reports to the Program Manager for the Community Economic 
Development Division of MOCD. This person will manage multiple loan and technical 
assistance projects and provide staff supervision and support to loan program and 
grants staff. This person will develop marketing and community outreach plan for loan 
programs. This person will also conduct underwriting analysis and serve as a loan 
processor, working with borrowers from the application through the loan servicing 
phases. It will entail extensive contact with the public including establishing 
relationships with local banks to leverage private sector capital and resources for small 
businesses through Community Reinvestment Act programs; and marketing city loan 
programs to local financial institutions, business organizations and non-profit groups. 
This position will serve as a resource for information on public & private loan programs, 
tax credits, technical assistance programs for small business, and employment training 
needs of small business. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 



% 

Time 


Task 


20 


Manage multiple loan and technical assistance projects and provide staff 
supervision and support to loan program and grants staff. 


15 


Conduct loan underwriting analysis, preparation of loan documents, and 
loan closings. 


5 


Process borrower loan draw requests and payments. 


20 


Assist borrowers and NEDOs in compiling loan packages and other 
submission forms. 


15 


Establishing marketing and outreach program to local banks through 
Community Reinvestment Act Programs to access capital and services 
for small businesses. 


10 


Serve as information resource person for public private loan programs, 
tax credits, and employment training needs of small business. 


15 


Other duties as assigned 



MINIMUM SKILLS: Undergraduate degree and a minimum of five years of work 
experience in related fields. Knowledge of loan underwriting, principles and practices. 
Knowledge of Community Reinvestment Act requirements of financial institutions and 
their relationship to small businesses. Demonstrated computer literacy with working 
knowledge of word processing, spreadsheet and communications software. 
Candidates should have demonstrated project management experience. Candidates 
should have experience in collecting and coordinating information from multiple 
organizations, knowledge of community development banking and lending industry, 
developing marketing plans for lending programs, and general knowledge of the needs 
of small businesses. This position requires general understanding of HUD's Community 



29 




FROM : CCSF_EMPLOYEE_RELflTIONS PHONE NO. : 415 557 4919 

Attachment II 
,J^h\' ' Page 1 ot 5 

City and County of San Francisco ffljR&£% Department of Human Resources 

ANDREA R. GOURDINE 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



August 13, 2001 

Sholanda Baldwin 

Director of Operations, Mayor's Office 

City Hall, Room 200 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

RE: SPECIAL ASSISTANT NOTIFICATION 

Dear Ms. Baldwin: 

Your request to upgrade 1-1366 Special Assistant VII position to 1-1369 Special Assistant X has been 
reviewed. Based upon the documentation provided, including the tasks and duties performed by the 
incumbent, we recommend reclassification into Civil Service class 1052 IS Business Analyst. 

The incumbent in subject position currently functions as the Information Systems Specialist and reports 
to the Fiscal Services Director of MOCD. 

According to the documentation submitted with this request, during the past 2 years MOCD (with 
assistance from DTIS) has created a computer based infrastructure for managing their programs and 
many of the tasks currently assigned to subject position did not exist. Besides performing MIS functions, 
the incumbent in subject position will be responsible for working directly with data collection and 
training in the non-profit sector. 

Originally, the Information Systems Specialist was responsible for providing technical assistance to 
management and staff; coordinating the electronic distribution of information; developing and 
coordinating internal review of MOCD information and implementation of IS policies within the 
department; assisting the MIS coordinator in network management; assisting in the identification, 
coordination and development of applications for internal and external information collection and 
dissemination; providing technical assistance to Community Based Organizations. 

In addition, incumbent in subject position is now troubleshooting software problems through telephone 
and in-person support; monitoring and maintaining computer and telecommunications equipment; 
installing, converting, and testing systems; installing, mamtaining and upgrading hardware and 
peripherals; analyzing user needs and designing or assisting in the design of interface applications 
between systems, i.e., embedding database information to create standardized grants and contracts; 
interfacing with program and technical staff to describe, define, and communicate needs; analyzing 
needs, cost-benefits, and feasibility of new applications; assisting technical staff in providing estimates to 
other departments regarding data wiring projects; developing standardized reports for program 
management and/or database management; analyzing work processes; writing and developing customized 
applications to streamline routine tasks, i.e., electronic time sheets; analyzing data processing needs; 
writing specifications for application development; writing procedures and documentation; and 
performing other duties as assigned. 

AA A#ul*h CH-aa* * Caw C*»«*te/»/* PA OHm^O^I 

30 



FROM : CCSF_EMPLOYEE_RELPTIONS PHONE NO. : 415 557 4919 ' ..■ .^£ 

Pa?,e Z ot S 



This position is funded through the Community Development Block Grant and the department has 
indicated that monies have been placed in reserve to fund this upgrade. 



Sincerely, 

Ana G. Borja-Valde 
Principal Personnel Analyst 



P-f£' 



cc: Linda Marini, DHR 
Roger Sanders, MYR 
File 



31 



Attachment I I 
Page 3 of 5 



Jity arid County of San Francisco fsfS^&w Department of Human Resources 




ANDREA R. GOURDINE 
August 9, 20U1 \SLi_S/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



Sholanda Baldwin 

Director of Operations, Mayor's Office 

City Hall, Room 200 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: SPECIAL ASSISTANT NOTIFICATION 

Dear Ms. Baldwin: 

Your request to upgrade 1-1369 Special Assistant X position, to 1-1370 Special Assistant XI, has been 
reviewed and approved. Incumbent in subject position functions as the Housing Compliance Manager and 
reports to the Director of MOH. 

This request is based on increased responsibilities assigned to subject position. More specifically, the 
incumbent in subject position is now responsible for managing a variety of compliance requirements for 
MOH activities, including contract procurement, and advising management on compliance policy issues 
and pending legislation. 

Originally, the Housing Compliance Manager was responsible for: overseeing and ensuring compliance of 
City -funded projects with Federal, state and local program requirements; establishing policies, procedures 
and compliance checklists for use by MOH staff for project management and approvals; monitoring 
contract procurement, AA/EEO and City equal opportunity requirements, local and Section 3 hiring and 
contracting, environmental and historic preservation reviews, accessibility standards, lead hazard 
management and prevailing wages; providing training and technical assistance to developers, other City 
departments and MOH staff regarding compliance issues; and working with other members of the 
planning and monitoring team in preparing required reports for the Board of Supervisors, HUD, and other 
agencies. 

In addition, the incumbent in subject position is responsible for: acting as the principal MOH liaison on 
compliance matters with other regulatory agencies, including HUD, the State Historic Preservation Office, 
the Human Rights Commission, the Planning Department and the Housing Authority; and investigating 
instances of possible non-compliance and preparing recommendations for management on possible 
courses of action; and working on other projects as assigned by. the Director and/or the Mayor. 

This position is funded through the Community Development Block Grant and the department has 
.indicated that monies have been placed in reserve to fund this upgrade. This position has been designated 
exempt per Charter Section 10.104.1. 




Ana Borfa-Valdes 
Principal Personnel Analyst 

cc: Roger Sanders, MYR 
Andrea Gourdine, DHR 
File 32 




City and County of San Francisco 

ANDREA R. GOURDINE 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 

August 9, 2001 



Sholanda Baldwin 

Director of Operations, Mayor's Office 

City Hall, Room 200 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: SPECIAL ASSISTANT NOTIFICATION 

Dear Ms. Baldwin: 

Your request to upgrade 1-1369 Special Assistant X position, to 1-1370 Special Assistant XI has been 
reviewed and approved. The incumbent in subject position functions as the Housing Program 
Manager and reports to the Single Family Housing Programs Director of MOH. The reason for this 
request is due to significant changes in program duties which involve the creation and execution of 
City policy and procedures designed to protect housing affordability through direct loan subsidies, tax 
credits and price restricted units. 

Originally, the Housing Program Manager was responsible for issuing funding notices; evaluating 
requests for funds and making recommendations; preparing loan and grant documents and closing 
loans; assisting in the development and implementation of MOH policies and procedures; monitoring 
construction progress and loan compliance; reviewing and approving funding disbursements; 
providing technical assistance to developers on zoning, environmental, historic preservation, 
affirmative action, relocation and accessibility requirements; and representing MOH before 
interagency committees, City boards, Commissions and other organizations 

In addition, the incumbent in subject position is responsible for: negotiating, monitoring and 
executing inclusionary requirements with developers, agents, and owners in resale transactions; 
working with non-profit housing agencies, lenders and housing developers in both the private and 
public sectors; reviewing grants proposals and issuing and reviewing RFPs; providing direct outreach 
and education to the public for single family programs; and working on other projects as assigned by 
the Director and/or the Mayor. 

This position is funded through the Community Development Block Grant and the department has 
indicated that monies have been placed in reserve to fund this upgrade. This position has been 
designated exempt per Charter Section 10.104.1 . 



Sincerely, 




/ 



AnacBorj a 7 - Valdes 
Principal Personnel Analyst 

cc: Roger Sanders, MYR 
Andrea Gourdine, DHR 
File 



33 



Attachment II 
Fa^e 5 ot i 

Crty and County of San Francisco jfi^SKra Department of Human Resources 



August 9, 2001 




ANDREA R. GOURDINE 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



Sholahda Baldwin 

Director of Operations, Mayor's Office 

City Hall, Room 200 ■ 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: SPECIAL ASSISTANT NOTIFICATION 

Dear Ms. Baldwin: 

Your request to upgrade 1-1372 Special Assistant XIII position (Loan Program Specialist,) to 1-1373 
Special Assistant XTV has been reviewed and approved. The incumbent in subject position functions as the 
Loan Project Manager and reports to the Program Manager for the Community Economic Development 
Division of-MOCD. 

A review of the documentation supporting this request indicates that the responsibilities assigned to subject 
position have increased. More specifically, the responsibilities assigned to subject position have been 
expanded to include project management oversight for two major City programs: the Bayview Business 
Resource Center project and the Capital Access project. 

Originally, this position had responsibility for: assisting with the development of department policies to 
promote effective economic development practices; assisting borrowers and NEDOs in compiling loan 
packages and other submission forms; establishing marketing and outreach programs to local banks through 
Community Reinvestment Act programs to access capital and services for small businesses; conducting loan 
underwriting analysis, preparation of loan documents, and loan closings; maint ainin g database and 
providing staff support to the division; serving as a information resource for public loan programs, tax 
credits and employment training needs of small business; and processing borrower loan draw requests and 
payments. 

In addition, the incumbent in subject position is managing multiple loan and technical assistance projects; 
providing guidance, training and support to staff of non-profit agencies which provide services and training 
to small businesses; supervising loan program and grants staff; and working on other projects as assigned by 
the Program Manager and/or the Mayor. 

This position is funded through the Community Development Block Grant and the department has indicated 
that monies have been placed in reserve to fund this upgrade. This position has been designated exempt per 
Charter Section 10.104.1. 




Ana G. Borja-Valdes 
Principal Personnel Analyst 

cc: Roger Sanders, MYR 

Andrea Gourdine, DHR 34 

File 



Attachment III 



MAYOR'S OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

CTIY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. 

MAYOR 

PAMELA H. DAVID 

DIRECTOR 



DATE: August 14, 2001 

Memorandum 

TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 
FROM: Roger Sanders 

RE: Release of Reserve for Staff Reclassifications 



On July 20, 2001 HUD provided the City with a grant agreement approving the 2001-2002 
CDBG program. This agreement was signed and returned to HUD on August 6, 2001 . This 
program included the funding for the staff reclassification reserved amount described in the 
expenditure schedule approved by the Board of Supervisors (Resolution No. 324-01). 

It has been the policy of the Mayor's Office, of which we are a part, that the majority of 
employees are Special Assistants. The Mayor's Office is reviewing that policy, and we will be 
working closely with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) to determine if MOCD (and 
other Mayor's Office divisions) should move to reclassify some of our staff. It would be 
inappropriate and premature to change the classification of just these 4 employees.. .their 
reclassifications are in line with our current organizational structure and classifications. These 
positions would certainly be looked at along with all others if the Mayor's Office and DHR 
determine that a major reclassification is in order. To add to the complexity, MOCD and MOH 
staff have responsibilities that are not shared by other City staff, and, from what we are aware, 
would not/could not be easily reclassified into existing Civil Service classes. 

Historically, Special Assistants are only one class of exempt employees in the Mayor's Office. 
While Special Assistants are as a group exempt, we have other employees in exempt classes 
including Community Development Specialists (9700 series). 



35 

25 Van Ness Avenue., Suite 700 • San Francisco, California 94102 • (415) 252-3100 FAX (415) 252-311 
TDD (415) 252-3107 www.ci.sf.ca.us/raocd 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 -File 01-1425 
Department: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual 

Increases to the 
Base Rent: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Department of Administrative Services (DAS) - 
Real Estate Division (RED) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 
2712 Mission Street on behalf of the Department of 
Public Health, Community Mental Health Services. 

2712 Mission Street between 23 rd and 24 th Streets 

To consolidate three neighborhood mental health 
clinics and the associated administrative staff into one 
central location (See Comment 1) 

2712 Mission Partners, L.P. (Mission Partners) 

City and County of San Francisco on behalf of the 
DPH. 



32,000 square feet of rentable square area at a 
monthly rental rate of $90,933.33 per month 
(approximately $2.84 per square foot per month). On 
an annual basis, rent would total $1,091,200 
(approximately $34.10 per square foot per year) during 
the first 24 months of the subject lease. 



Under the subject lease agreement, the rental rate 
would increase by the percentage increase in the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Area provided that the base rate cannot 
decrease nor increase by more than 10 percent for a 
two-year period or an average of 5 percent per year. 
Rental rates would be subject to increase every two 
years on the following dates: October 1, 2003, October 
1, 2005, October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2009. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Upon substantial completion of tenant improvements 
by the Lessor (anticipated to be October 1, 2001) 
through September 30, 2011 (ten years). 

The City would have three options for five years each 
to extend the term of the proposed lease. The rent 
would be at 95 percent of the prevailing market rent at 
the time each option to extend is exercised. Mr. Julian 
Sutherland from the RED advises that at the time of 
renewal, the landlord will determine the prevailing 
market rent for 2712 Mission Street based on space of 
comparable size and location. Mr. Sutherland further 
advises that the City has the right to dispute the 
landlord's prevailing market rate and such dispute 
would be resolved by meeting with the landlord at 
least 2 times to resolve the disagreement and if no 
resolution can be reached then separate appraisals 
will be done to determine the correct market rent. The 
Director of Property can revoke the extension if the 
Director does not approve the prevailing rate 
determined by the appraisals . If the City chooses to 
exercise the option, the City must give written notice 
to the Landlord no later than 180 days prior to the 
expiration of the term to be extended. All such 
renewals are subject to appropriation approval of the 
Board of Supervisors. 



Utilities, Janitorial 

And Other Services: Provided by the DPH at an estimated annual cost to 

DPH of $27,200 per month ($0.85 per square foot per 
month) for an annual cost of $326,400. 



Source of Funds: 



According to Ms. Judy Schutzman from the DPH, 
$1,063,200 (nine months at $90,933.33 for rent plus 
nine months at $27,200 for utilities, janitorial and 
other services) has been budgeted in FY 2001-2002 for 
nine months of rent and utilities and janitorial and 
other services for 2712 Mission Street. Additionally, 
DPH's FY 2001-2002 budget included $20,000 for 
moving costs and $200,000 for telephone costs (see 
Comment 4). Ms. Schutzman advises that funding for 
2712 Mission Street for FY 2001-2002 is 62 percent 
from Federal and State grants and 38 percent from 
General Fund monies. Ms. Schutzman advises that 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Description: 



Comments: 



such costs would be funded from DPH's annual budget 
in future years. 

The proposed resolution would authorize DPH to enter 
into a new ten-year lease for 32,000 square feet of 
rentable space at 2712 Mission Street with 2712 
Mission Partners, L.P. According to Ms. Schutzman, 
this space would be used to provide mental health 
outpatient and day treatment services to a total 
caseload of approximately 1,600 clients at any given 
time (or approximately 2,500 unduplicated clients each 
year) and provide coordination of inpatient services by 
co-locating DPH's residential treatment, long-term 
care and discharge planning units. These units 
arrange for placement and discharge of clients who are 
receiving treatment in hospitals, residential care 
facilities, and institutions which contract with DPH. 
Ms. Schutzman advises that 85 DPH employees would 
move from four leased locations into 2712 Mission 
Street (see Comments 1 and 2 below). 

1. According to Ms. Schutzman, the proposed new 
lease would provide for the consolidation of three other 
leased facilities providing mental health services into 
one facility at 2712 Mission Street, as well as to 
incorporate the associated mental health 
administrative staff presently located at a fourth 
leased facility at 1380 Howard Street. Ms. Schutzman 
advises that the three mental health clinics which will 
be relocated to 2712 Mission Street are currently 
located at: (1) 3901& 3911 Mission Street; (2) 755 
South Van Ness Avenue; (3) 111 Potrero Avenue; and 
the associated administrative staff will be relocated 
from leased space at 1380 Howard Street, which DPH 
currently uses as administrative office space. Ms. 
Schutzman advises in an attached memorandum 
(Attachment I) that the consolidation of the three 
climes and the associated administrative staff is the 
culmination of more than five years of searching for 
one consolidated facility to provide mental health 
outpatient and day treatment services in a central 
location which has adequate public transportation for 
patient access. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Attachment II, provided by Mr. Schutzman, contains 
the monthly rental costs for each of these four facilities 
that would be relocated to 2712 Mission Street, the 
amount of square feet in each of the four facilities, and 
the number of employees in each of the four facilities, 
and the average number of square feet per employee at 
each of the four facilities. Based on the data contained 
in Attachment II, the proposed new lease containing 
32,000 square feet would have 11,229 of 54.1 percent 
more square feet than the 20,771 square feet in the 
four existing leased facilities. In Attachment I, Ms. 
Schutzman reports that the total rentable square feet 
increases by 54.1 percent but the actual office space for 
staff only increases by 14.7 percent. The total 
proposed rent of $1,091,200 per year is $641,248 or 
142.5 percent more annually than the total annual 
cost of $449,952 for the four existing leased facilities. 
Mr. Sutherland reports that the City must vacate 111 
Potrero Avenue by the end of this calendar year 
because that lease expires and the owner has notified 
DPH that they cannot renew the subject lease. 
Therefore, the City, at a minimum would have to lease 
a new location for the mental health chnic currently 
located at 111 Potrero by no later than January 2002. 
In Attachment I, Ms. Schutzman advises that the 
lease payments for the three clinic locations would 
terminate upon 30 days notice to the landlords and 
DPH will send such notices once they know the exact 
date they can move to the 2712 Mission Street facilty. 
Mr. Sutherland also reports that all of the existing 
clinics are currently located in buildings that do not 
appear to meet the City's current building and safety 
code standards, including ADA (Americans with 
Disabilities Act) compliance, and 111 Potrero does not 
meet current seismic standards. Mr. Sutherland 
advises that the three clinics to be moved to 2712 
Mission Street are all currently on month-to-month 
leases. Ms. Schutzman advises that the 18 employees, 
the 3,600 square feet and the $5,112 monthly rent for 
1380 Howard Street as shown in Attachment II only 
relates to the 18 administrative staff that support the 
three separate mental health clinics. Ms. Schutzman 
advises that DPH currently occupies 70,000 square 
feet of space at 1380 Howard Street and approximately 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to. Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

350 DPH employees will remain at 1380 Howard 
Street once the 18 administrative staff move to 2712 
Mission Street. Ms. Schutzman states that the space 
vacated by the 18 administrative staff would be used 
to house new grant-funded positions for Children's 
Services and a physical/behavioral health integration 
project. Therefore, Ms. Schutzman advises that the 
200 square foot per employee would remain 
approximately the same, at 1380 Howard Street. 

2. As reported by Ms. Schutzman in Attachment II, a 
total of 85 employees will be moving from the four 
existing leased facilities to 2712 Mission Street. 
According to Mr. Sutherland, since the proposed 
premises will be used primarily as mental health 
clinics, the standard space per employee is not directly 
applicable. Nonetheless, Mr. Sutherland reports in 
Attachment III, that approximately 19,585 square feet 
of the proposed 32,000 square feet is 
staff/administrative area or approximately 230 square 
feet per employee. Mr. Sutherland reports that the 
remaining area of approximately 12,415 square feet of 
the proposed 32,000 square feet would be used (a) as 
interview/exam rooms, (b) for patient day care, (c) for 
storage of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, (d) 
for medication dispensing and injection rooms, and (e) 
to serve as reception, group and individual therapy 
rooms. 

3. Mr. Sutherland advises that the Lessor, 2712 
Mission Partners, L.P. would construct, tenant 
improvements pursuant to the DPH's specifications, 
which would meet current building code requirements 
and make the subject building located at 2712 Mission 
Street ADA compliant. Mr. Sutherland advises that 
Mission Partners will construct the tenant 
improvements at no cost to the City unless the City 
makes changes to the tenant improvements or delays 
tenant improvements that result in an increase of 
costs to Mission Partners. However, Mr. Sutherland 
advises that as of the writing of this report only minor 
changes or delays could be expected, which would not 
result in significant costs to the City. In any event, 
any additional appropriation would be subject to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

approval by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Sutherland 
reports that as of the writing of this report he is 
uncertain as to the total tenant improvement costs to 
be incurred by the Lessor. In Attachment III, Mr. 
Sutherland reports that the owner of the property 
agreed, in return for a market rent lease of ten years, 
to build out the space to DPH specifications at no cost 
to the City. According to Mr. Sutherland, the DPH 
anticipates the improvements will be substantially 
completed by October 1, 2001. Therefore, Mr. 
Sutherland advises, DPH will take occupancy of 2712 
Mission Street on or about October 1, 2001 if the 
proposed lease agreement between the City and 
Mission Partners is approved. As mentioned above, in 
Attachment I Ms. Schutzman advises that the lease 
payments for the three existing clinic locations would 
terminate upon 30 days notice to the landlords and 
DPH will send such notices once they know the exact 
date they can move into the 2712 Mission Street 
facility. 

4. Ms. Schutzman advises that the Department would 
also pay for moving expenses at an estimated cost of 
$20,000, and telephone wiring and installation at an 
estimated cost of $200,000, which would be provided 
by the Department of Telecommunications and 
Information Services. Such expenses would be paid 
from DPH's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Operating Budget, 
according to Ms. Schutzman. 

5. The subject lease includes an option to purchase the 
property at 2712 Mission Street for $12,500,000 at any 
time prior to January 1, 2004. Attachment IV, 
provided by the RED, is the Purchase Option 
Agreement. The basis for the $12.5 million value is 
the owner's opinion of the value of the building after 
the leased has been executed and delivered to both 
parties and the tenant improvements have been 
completed, according to Mr. Sutherland. Mr. 
Sutherland advises that there is no provision in the 
Purchase Option Agreement to apply any rent 
previously paid toward the purchase price of the 
building. Purchase of the building located at 2712 
Mission Street would be subject to separate Board of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Supervisors approval. According to Ms. Schutzman in 
Attachment I, DPH is not certain at this time if the 
Department will exercise the Purchase Option. As of 
the writing of this report Mr. Sutherland states that 
the RED has not made an independent appraisal to 
determine the current fair market value of the 2712 
Mission Street facility. 

6. According to Mr. Sutherland, the proposed monthly 
rental rate of $90,933.33 or $2.84 per square foot per 
month for the 2712 Mission Street facility represents 
fair market value. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 

for the Board of Supervisors because the annual rent 
for the 2712 Mission Street facility is $1,091,200, 
which is 142.5 percent or $641,248 more than the total 
annual rent of $449,952 for the four existing leased 
facilities. Further, the new facility contains 11,229 
more square feet than the four existing facilities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGEJ^NALYST 




City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Public Health 
Population Health & Prevention 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 



Attachment I 
Page 1 ot Z 
Judith Schutzman, MPA 
Operations Manager 

1380 Howard Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103-2614 

(415)255-3405 FAX (415)252-3015 

Judy_Schutzman@dph.sf.ca.us 



MEMORANDUM 



Date: 



To: 



From: 



August 14, 2001 

Maureen Singleton 

Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst 

Judy Schutzman 



Subject: 



2712 Mission Street 



Community Mental Health Services is proposing to consolidate three mental health outpatient 
clinics currently located at 3901-391 1 Mission, 755 S. Van Ness and 1 1 1 Potrero and related 
administrative functions from 1380 Howard Street to a new location at 2712 Mission Street. This 
is the culmination of a more than five-year search for space in a central location that serves the 
Mission neighborhood and is on a major public transit line. The landlord at 1 1 1 Potrero has 
notified us that he wants us to move by December 31 st . All three of the clinic properties are on 
month-to-month leases with a 30 cancellation notice requirement. Once we know a firm 
construction completion date, landlords will be sent appropriate termination notices. The total 
rentable square feet increases by 54% but the actual office space for staff only increases by 14%. 

The City has an option to purchase the property at a cost of $12,500,000. This Option may be 
exercised at any time during the term of the lease but no later than January 1, 2004. 

The purchase is subject to approval by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors and only after the 
City has completed its " Due Diligence" . Approval is contingent on the successful issuance, 
delivery and sale of bonds or other financing mechanism. The City must obtain this approval 
with 175 days of exercising the Option or the landlord may terminate the City's purchase option. 
Bonds or other financing mechanism must be obtained within 270 days of exercising the Option. 

There is no credit for rent paid prior to the exercising of the Option. 

DPH has not decided whether to exercise the option at this time. As the option period gets closer, 
we will evaluate our long-term need for space along with the prevailing rental market rates to 
determine whether a purchase is appropriate. 

All three of the clinics provide outpatient individual and group therapy, case management 
services, day treatment and medication management to mentally ill adults. The Mission 
Integrated Service Center (ISC) at 1 1 1 Potrero is a central intake point for new clients and also 
provides crisis intervention and assessment. Mission Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) at 



43 



Attachment I 
Page Z ot Z 
2712 Mission Street, page 2 

755 S. Van Ness has a focused caseload of severely mentally ill adults who also receive 
vocational rehabilitation services and training in dealing with the tasks of daily living. SE 
Mission Geriatrics at 3901-1 1 Mission Street serves elderly clients in the Mission and southeast 
corridor of the City. 

The combined caseload is approximately 1 600 clients at any given time. 

The new site will also enable coordination of inpatient services by co-locating the residential 
treatment, long-term care and discharge planning units. These units arrange for placement and 
discharge of clients who are receiving treatment in hospitals, residential care facilities, and 
institutions that contract with the Department. At present, the long-term care staff is located in 
two different sites - 391 1 Mission and 1380 Howard Streets - with one manager traveling 
between them. Space vacated at 1380 Howard Street will be used to house new grant- funded 
positions for Children's Services and a physical/behavioral health integration project. 

Please let me know if you need additional information. 

Cc: Julian Sutherland, RED 



44 



Attachment II 



a.2 



ui 
ui 

<n i- 

uj to 

i9 z 

F > o 

uj to 52 

= 1 = 

O H <S 



E < 



m 



(M 



O < 2 

° I- o 

fc z i= 

Sid 

UISQ 

a 5 lu 

o 
a: 



E a: 


to o o m 




oo o o t- 


< 


in co id co 



Ifl O r- 



O O «- O r- 

r~ o o o r- 

to co •- ao o 

CO ^' to rj r-* 



o o o o 



O O ON r- 



t- cn i- *- t- 



co o o t 

o o o <r 



t O O CN 

CO O O T- 

co o tn t- 



O O •- O i- 

rs o o o h- 
o o i- <o r~- 



5 5 5§ 

O O O o 

" " " rj 

c c c CO 











n 


o 

m 


a 










ID 


* 


CD 


a 






tfc 


t- 


to 


CD 


V) 






CO 


id 


n. 


a. 








cu 


0) 





_ CD 



ra ci 

■o ra 

2 w 

t_ iS 



a £ 



IS 



ra £ 75 



5 £ 



o o 

■= E 



>. i) 



O T3 



CU O 

-£" *■" -i 

S2 CO J^* 

U C3« 

cu ra o 

■a aj cu 

c p £ 



ra cu ™ 
CO £ o 

• — CO 



45 



Attachment III 



City and County of San Francisco Real Estate Division 

#!%^ Administrative Services Department 



MEMORANDUM 



August 16, 2001 



TO: Maureen Singleton 



FROM: Julian Sutherland 

554-9866 



SUBJECT: .01-1425, 2712 Mission Street Lease 



The lease at 2712 Mission Street is a "turnkey" build-out of mental health specific space described in the 
conceptual space plan approved by DPH and RED. DPH and RED will approve the final construction 
documents prior to construction. The owner of the property agreed, in return for a market rent lease often 
years, to build out the space to our specifications at no cost to the City. 

The confidentiahty requirements of the mental heath clinic operation necessitate extra soundproofing and 
more numerous small private offices than a typical office build out. In addition, space is required for 
interview/exam rooms, patient day care, secure medical storage, medication dispensing and injection rooms, 
group and individual therapy rooms, a large reception area and a kitchen. Our estimate from the conceptual 
space plan is that approximately 19,585 square feet of the 32,000 square feet in the building is staff/ 
administrative space. We have been advised by DPH that they are currently unable to function efficiently 
at their locations due to lack of this space. 



JS:C\windows\TEMP\~ME000l9DOC 
(415) 554-9850 Office of the Director of Property 

FAX: (415) 552-9216 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94102 

46 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 3 



EXHIBIT G 



PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT 

1 . OPTION TO PURCHASE 

1.1. Grant of Option to Purchase 

Landlord hereby grants to City an exclusive and irrevocable option to purchase (the 
"Purchase Option") the Property for the price and upon the terms and conditions specified 
herein. City may exercise the Purchase Option at any time during the Term of the Lease that is 
prior to January 1, 2004 (the "Option Term") by giving Landlord written notice of its intent to 
exercise the Purchase Option, provided that City shall have cured any past Event of Default at 
the time City exercises the Purchase Option and as of the Closing Date, as applicable. City's 
purchase of the Property pursuant to the Purchase Option shall be subject to approval by City in 
its sole discretion of such additional environmental and other investigations of the Property as 
City may deem appropriate ("Due Diligence"), and approval by City's Board of Supervisors and 
Mayor, in their respective sole discretion, and due adoption of a resolution authorizing such 
purchase and ordinance appropriating all necessary funds in accordance with all applicable laws 
(including CEQA). City shall conclude any Due Diligence and obtain approval by City's Board 
of Supervisors and Mayor, in their respective sole discretion, no later than one hundred and 
seventy-five (175) days after such exercise. Landlord shall have the right to terminate City's 
Purchase Option if such approvals have not been obtained by said one hundred and seventy-fifth 
(175 ) day. Such approvals shall be contingent upon and subject to City's successful issuance, 
delivery and sale of bonds or another financing mechanism to finance acquisition of the 
Property, which shall occur no later than two hundred and seventy (270) days after City's 
exercise of this Purchase Option. Upon obtaining such approvals and financing, City shall be 
obligated to purchase from Landlord and Landlord shall be obligated to sell and convey to City 
the Property for the purchase price and on the terms and conditions set forth hereinbelow. 

1.2. Purchase Price 

The total purchase price for the Property shall be Twelve Million Five Hundred 
Thousand Dollars (312,500,000) (the "Purchase Price"). 

1.3. Closing 

The purchase and sale of the Property contemplated by this Article (the "Closing") shall 
close on or before the date that is two hundred seventy (270) days from the date of City's notice 
of its intent to exercise the Purchase Option (the "Closing Date") through an escrow opened by 
City with Chicago Title Company (the "Title Company") or such other title insurance company 
qualified to do business in the State of California with an office located in the City and County of 
San Francisco as City may select. Prior to the Closing Date, Landlord and City shall each 
deposit in escrow with the Title Company all documents and funds necessary to close the 
purchase and sale, together with escrow instructions consistent herewith. Landlord shall convey 
to City by grant deed fee simple title to the Property (or such portion thereof as shall have not 



H:\l-Main\52\5262 Mission Consolid=tion\2712 Mission\2712missionLiise6.doc 

47 



Attachment IV 
Page 2 ot 15 



been taken by eminent domain in the event of a taking prior to the Closing Date), subject only to 
the following (collectively, the "Purchase Option Permitted Exceptions"): (i) a lien for real 
property taxes and assessments not yet due and payable for the tax fiscal year in which the 
Closing Date occurs, (ii) any other easements or title exceptions (excluding any Encumbrances) 
created or suffered by City or consented to in writing by City in its sole discretion or granted by 
Landlord solely at City's written request, and (iii) any other exceptions approved by the City 
during the Due Diligence period. City shall advise Seller, within the Due Diligence period, what 
title and survey exceptions, if any, City is willing to accept. Landlord shall have ten (10) days 
after receipt of City's notice of any objections to title and survey matters to give City: 
CO evidence satisfactory to City of the removal of all objectionable exceptions from title or that 
such exceptions will be removed or cured on or before the Closing Date, either at Landlord's 
sole expense,; or (ii) notice that Landlord elects not to cause such exceptions to be removed. If 
Landlord gives notice under clause (ii), City shall have ten (10) business days to elect to proceed 
with the purchase or terminate this Option to Purchase. If City shall fail to give Landlord notice 
of its election within such ten (10) days, City shall be deemed to have elected to terminate this 
Option. If Landlord gives notice under clause (ii) and City elects to proceed with the purchase, 
Landlord shall reasonably cooperate with City to cure such objectionable matter, provided that 
Landlord shall have no obligation to expend money. 

Delivery of title in accordance with the foregoing shall be evidenced by the commitment 
of the Title Company to issue to City, or its nominee, an ALTA Owner's Policy of Title 
Insurance (Form B - 1970 amended 4-6-90) (the "Title Policy") in the amount of the Purchase 
Price insuring fee simple title to the Property in City, or its nominee, free of the liens of all 
Encumbrances, rights of tenants or other occupants and all other exceptions, liens or 
encumbrances except solely for Purchase Option Permitted Exceptions. The Title Policy shall 
contain such special endorsements and provisions on co-insurance or re-insurance as City may 
reasonably require. 

1 .4. Damage or Destruction; Eminent Domain 

If prior to the Closing Date any of the Property are damaged or destroyed or if 
condemnation proceedings are commenced against any of the Property by any entity other than 
the City, then the rights and obligations of City and Landlord hereunder shall be as follows: 

(a) If such damage or destruction is fully covered by Landlord's insurance 
(except for the deductible amount thereunder, for which Landlord shall be responsible), and the 
insurer agrees to timely pay for the entire cost of such repair, and such damage or destruction 
would cost less than One Million Dollars (21,000,000) (the "Threshold Damage Amount") to 
repair or restore, then City shall proceed with the purchase. In such case, City shall receive a 
credit against the Purchase Price equal to such deductible amount, and Landlord shall assign to 
City at the Closing all of Landlord's right, title and interest in and to all proceeds of insurance on 
account of such damage or destruction pursuant to an instrument satisfactory to City. 

(b) If such damage or destruction is not fully covered by Landlord's insurance 
(other than the deductible amount) and would cost less than the Threshold Damage Amount to 
repair or restore, then City shall proceed with the purchase and shall receive a credit against the 



-.'2 Mission Consolidation^? 12 Miision\27I2missionL«ase€.doc 



Attachment IV 
Page 3 of 3 



Purchase Price at the Closing in an amount reasonably determined by Landlord and City (after 
consultation with unaffiliated experts) to be the cost of repairing such damage or destruction. 

(c) If the cost to repair such damage or destruction equals or exceeds the 
Threshold Damage Amount, or if condemnation proceedings are commenced against any of the 
Property by any entity other than the City, then, City shall have the right, at its election, to 
rescind its exercise of the Purchase Option in its entirety, or only as to that portion of the 
Property damaged or destroyed or subject to condemnation proceedings (in which case there 
shall be an equitable adjustment to the Purchase Price), or to purchase the Property (or the 
portion not damaged or affected by condemnation, as the case may be, subject to the 
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act). City shall have thirty (30) days after an event 
described in this subsection has occurred to make such election by delivery to Landlord of an 
election notice. City's failure to deliver such notice within such thirty (30) day period shall be 
deemed City's election to rescind its exercise of the Purchase Option in its entirety. If the 
exercise of the Purchase Option is rescinded in its entirety or in part pursuant to this subsection, 
then City and Landlord shall each be released from all obligations under this Section pertaining 
to that portion of the Property affected by such rescission. If City does not elect to rescind its 
exercise of the Purchase Option, Landlord shall notify City of either Landlord's intention to 
repair such damage or destruction, in which case City shall proceed with the purchase of the 
Property, or Landlord's intention to give City a credit towards the Purchase Price at the Closing 
in an amount reasonably determined by City and Landlord (after consultation with unaffiliated 
experts) to be the cost of repairing such damage or destruction, but such credit shall not be 
greater than the insurance proceeds available to Landlord, provided that Landlord has maintained 
the insurance required by the Lease. Any repairs elected to be made by Landlord pursuant to this 
subsection shall be made within one hundred fifty (150) days following such damage or 
destruction and the Closing shall be extended until the repairs are substantially completed. 

1.5. Costs and Expenses 

City shall pay for the cost of the premium of the extended coverage title insurance policy 
to be issued to City on the Closing Date. City and Landlord shall share any escrow or recording 
fees for the purchase and sale. City shall pay documentary transfer taxes, if any on the on the 
recordation of the grant deed. Real Estate Taxes shall be prorated as of the Closing Date. Rent 
and any and all other charges payable hereunder shall be prorated as of the Closing Date. 



H:\l-MairtJ2V5262 Mission Consolidation^!: MissionV2712missionUasc6.doc 



ho 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 01-1176 



Departments: 



Item: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of 3,000 square feet at 
100 Blanken Street for services to be provided by the 
Department of Public Health's Southeast Child Family 
Therapy Center that are currently located at 10 29 th Street 
and 20 29 th Street. 1 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Increases 
to the Base Rent: 



Term of Lease: 



100 Blanken Street 

To provide services in a wheelchair accessible facility for 
the DPH Southeast Child Family Therapy Center. 

Salvador Jimenez, Jr. and Celestina Jimenez. 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
DPH. 



3,000 square feet at a monthly rental rate of $5,125 
(approximately $1.71 per square foot per month). The 
proposed monthly rental rate of $5,125 includes $3,000 in 
base rent, or approximately $1.00 per square foot per 
month, and $2,125 in amortized tenant improvement costs, 
or approximately $0.71 per square foot per month (see 
Tenant Improvements). On an annual basis, rent would 
total $61,500 (approximately $20.50 per square foot per 
year). 



Annual increases to the base rent over the five year term of 
the lease would be based on the percentage increase in the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Area. Annual increases to the base rent would 
be no less than three percent and no more than six percent. 

Anticipated commencement date is October 1, 2001 through 
September 30, 2006 (five years). 



1 10 29 th Street is located next door to 20 29 th Street. Both addresses are under the same 
lease agreement and, for the purpose of this report, will be identified as the same location. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Eight of Renewal: None. 



Utilities: 



To be provided by the City at an estimated annual cost of 
$3,200 ($267 per month). 



Janitorial Services: 



To be provided by the City at an estimated annual cost of 
$7,200 ($600 per month). 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



Source of Funds: 



According to Ms. Claudine Venegas of the Real Estate 
Division, the City would be required to pay for tenant 
improvements at a principal cost not to exceed $176,880. 
The improvements and the related estimated costs are 
shown in Attachment I, in a vendor quotation provided by 
DPH. The City would be responsible for amortizing 
$100,000 at an annual interest rate of 10 percent of the 
tenant improvement costs over the five-year term of the 
lease, resulting in monthly payments by the City to the 
landlord of $2,125, or approximately $0.71 per square foot, 
for a five-year total payment of $127,500 including 
$100,000 in principal and $27,500 in interest. This monthly 
payment of $2,125 is included in the monthly rental rate of 
$5,125 ($3,000 in base rent plus $2,125 in tenant 
improvement costs). The City would also be required to 
make a lump sum payment to the lessor for the remaining 
principal balance of tenant improvements not to exceed 
$76,880 together with the first month's rent of $5,125. The 
City would ultimately pay up to a total of $204,380 for 
tenant improvement costs, including a lump sum payment 
of $76,880 and $127,500 of principal and interest amortized 
over five years. 

Payments for the base rent would be funded by 68 percent 
State and Federal grants and 32 percent General Fund 
monies, subject to appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors in the DPH annual budget. Payments for the 
tenant improvement costs would be funded by General 
Fund monies. The costs of the proposed lease for the first 
nine months from October 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002 
have been included in the DPH FY 2001-2002 budget, 
including the lump sum payment to the landlord for tenant 
improvements, the base rent, the rent for the amortized 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

tenant improvement costs, utilities, janitorial services, and 
telephone installation (see Comment No. 5). Subsequent 
rent payments and related costs would be subject to 
appropriation approval in the annual DPH budgets. 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize DPH to enter into 

a new five-year lease for 3,000 square feet of space at 100 
Blanken Street. According to Ms. Judy Schutzman of DPH, 
this space would be used for a portion of the DPH 
Southeast Child Family Therapy Center. The Southeast 
Child Family Therapy Center delivers mental health 
outpatient services including individual and group therapy 
and case management to children and their families who 
reside primarily in the Mission and Bayview-Visitacion 
Valley areas of the City. 

Ms. Schutzman reports that the Southeast Family Therapy 
Center has 23 employees and currently operates at the 
following three locations: 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street, 
4527 Mission Street and 300 Bennington Street. The 
proposed lease of 3,000 square feet of space at 100 Blanken 
Street would accommodate the 11 employees who are 
currently working at 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street. The 
11 employees currently working at 4527 Mission Street and 
the one employee who currently works at 300 Bennington 
Street would remain at their present locations. 

The Southeast Family Therapy Center is relocating from 
the 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street locations because, as 
stated in the attached memorandum dated August 15, 2001 
from DPH to the Budget Analyst (Attachment III), the 
landlord has sold the building and the new landlord plans 
to demolish the building. The 11 employees would move to 
100 Blanken Street on October 1, 2001, the anticipated 
date by which all of the tenant improvements will be 
completed. The Department would cease to pay rent at 10 
29 th Street and 20 29 th Street on September 30, 2001. 

The 11 employees working at 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th 
Street currently serve a total caseload of 240 and total 
unduplicated clients of 300 annually. 

Comments: 1. As shown in Attachment II, provided by DPH, the 23 

employees that staff DPH's Southeast Family Therapy 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Center facilities are currently located in three leased 
facilities as follows: 

(a) 11 employees occupy 2,400 square feet of office 
space at 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street (218 
square feet per employee) under a month-to- 
month lease at approximately $0.67 per square 
foot per month for $1,600 per month or $19,200 
annually (File 64-87-15); 

(b) 11 employees occupy 2,031 square feet of office 
space at 4527 Mission Street (an average of 185 
square feet per employee 2 ) under a five-year 
lease that began on June 1, 2000 at 
approximately $1.50 per square foot per month 
for $3,047 per month or $36,564 annually (File 
00-0566); and 

(c) one employee occupies 1,189 square feet of office 
space at 300 Bennington Street, which is the 
only site that has a conference room to 
accommodate group therapy sessions, staff 
meetings, and community outreach meetings, at 
approximately $0.55 per square foot per month 
for $650 per month or $7,800 annually (File 64- 
87-15). 

2. At shown in Attachment II, under the proposed new 
lease, the 11 employees who currently occupy 2,400 square 
feet of space at 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street at 
approximately $0.67 per square foot per month for $1,600 
per month or $19,200 annually would move to 3,000 square 
feet of space at 100 Blanken Street at approximately $1.71 
per square foot per month at a rental cost of $5,125 per 
month or $61,500 annually. The monthly rent of $5,125 
under the proposed new lease at 100 Blanken Street is 
$3,525 or 220.3 percent more than the present monthly 
rent of $1,600 at 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street and 
provides for 600 or 25 percent more square feet (3,000 less 
2,400). The proposed 3,000 square feet at 100 Blanken 
Street location would provide an average of approximately 
273 square feet per employee, an increase of 25 percent 
more than the 2,400 square feet at 10 29 th Street and 20 
29 th Street. The 100 Blanken Street facility provides 230 
square feet per employee of office space and 470 square feet 



2 The 4527 Mission Street facility provides 165 square feet per employee of office space and 
216 square feet of space for client visits. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

of space for client visits and a conference room. The other 
12 DPH Southeast Child Family Therapy Center employees 
(23 less 11) would remain at their current locations at 4527 
Mission Street and 300 Bennington Street. 

3. As stated in the attached memorandum (Attac hm ent 
III) DPH had originally planned to relocate the Southeast 
Child Family Therapy Center into a single location. 
However, DPH was not able to locate one facility of 
sufficient size to accommodate the Center. 

4. Ms. Schutzman advises that during the FY 2001-2002 
annual budget process, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated $150,805 related to the proposed lease at 100 
Blanken Street as follows: (a) $76,880 for the one-time 
payment by the City to the landlord for a portion of the 
improvement costs, (b) $46,125 (9 times $5,125) for rental 
payments from October of 2001 through June of 2002, and 
(c) $2,400 (9 times $267) for utilities payments from 
October of 2001 through June of 2002, (d) $5,400 (9 times 
$600) for janitorial services payments from October of 2001 
through June of 2002, and (d) $20,000 for telephone 
installation costs. 

5. Ms. Venegas reports that the proposed monthly rent of 
$5,125 or approximately $1.71 per square foot per month 
for the proposed 100 Blanken Street facility represents fair 
market value. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors because the monthly rent of 
$5,125 for the proposed new lease at 100 Blanken Street 
would result in an increased cost to the City of $3,525 or 
220.3 percent more than the current monthly rent of $1,600 
at 10 29 th Street and 20 29 th Street and would provide a 25 
percent increase in space. It should also be noted that 
under the proposed lease the City would be paying for 
$100,000 in landlord improvements, amortized over five 
years at an interest rate of 10 percent and total interest 
payments of $27,500. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Curran & Associates 
' General Contractors Inc 
PMB23SA36 WPortal Ave 
San Francisco. CA 94 1 27 
■Uc#754265 

Voice: (415)585-1653 ' 
Fas: (415)585-1634 

E-mail: currinassoc@E4rthLink.Net 




GgfljftfljMJj III 1 MB 



Attachment I 

yuotauon 

Quote Number. 
1 10 Btanken St 
Quote Date: . 

12/4700 

Page Number 



Quoted To: 



Salvador Jimenes 
UOBlarJcen Ave 
San Francisco, CA 94134 



Customer ID 


Expiration Date 


Sales Rep Payment Terms 


Salvador Jimenes 


1/3/01 


Net 30 



Description 



Amount 



Frame in and install 8 windows. 3 new opening and 5 replaement plus gated front window at reception 

area. \ ' '. > 

Plans, permits and legwork to get permit. 

Demo. : 

Framing, Shedrock, tape plus texture. 

Cabinets, counters, doors, trim. 

Insulation. 

Drop ceiling at front plus rear of office space. 

H.V.A.C. 

Handi-cap rimp. 

Carpet/lwolum. 

Pluming.(flxturcs included) 

Electrical.ffixtures included) 

Stucco work. ' 

10% Profit. 

10%Overhead. 

Information gathered to get this proposal was obtained from a. driwing supplied by city and county of 
SanFrancisco Real Estate Division Administrative Services Dept.Dept of Public Health. 



13,600.00 

9,040.00 
• 2,000.00 
25,685.00 
11,9.00.00" 
4,000.00 
12,240.00 
7,120.00 
2390.00 
6,000.00 
12,175.00 
38,750.00 
2,500.00 
14,740.00 
14,740.00 
'■ 0.00 



Subtotal 


176,880.00 


Freight 


■ O.OO 


Sales Tax 


' 0.00 


Total 


176,880.00 



55 



I . '■• 



Attachment II 



- 3= 


00 


in 


en 


U_ (3 




CD 


m 




CM 






& " 








« fe 








a. 








o£ 


r- 


<- 


r~ 



§< 



E < 



2 S 
o 



S 2- 


CO 


O 
in 


in 
in 


o 
o 


o 




O 


."3 c 

3 a 

< 


o 
o 

CN 


CO 


o 
a 

CD 


0) 


CO 

n 


IN 



CO o 
.-T CO* 



O «- CD 

o n co 

<* a r- 

CN CVJ ,_" 



o m o 

2 a 2 
to 

c l> c 

o in o 



CD <N 

t =3 



a 



3 O in O 

O ■- t n 



>- IB 01 
CO r- CO 

m m 



a> co a 

co t- in 
<*• cn «- 



in 


in 


CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 


r> 



1- Q CO 

irt co" 



O CO CD 

o o - 

co cy" ,-"• 



co 



in o 



^ 5 

o d 2 

CO CO 



CD 



in o 



>o 



2 2 5 



in -^ 



wo ffl cTomo 2 ^ 



2r = 



II 

o E 
o § 

T3 f0 



CD 


E 


H 


o 








jr 


Ifl 


c 



>* 


E 


Q_ 





& E 



co Q 

■D . 



56 




City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Public Health 
Community Health Programs 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 



Attachment 

Judith Schutzman, MPA 
Operations Manager 

1380 Howard Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103-2614 

(415)255-3405 FAX (415)252-3015 

Judy_Schutzman@dph.sf.ca.us 





MEMORANDUM 


Date: 


August 15, 2001 


To: 


Anna Weinstein 

Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 


From: 


Judy Schutzman 


Subject: 


File #01 -11 76 
100Blanken Street 



The Department of Public Health, Community Mental Health Services proposes to lease 
3,000 square feet of space at 100 Blanken for the relocation of the remaining SE Child 
& Family Therapy Center staff currently located at 10-20 29 th Street. The building has 
been sold and will be demolished by the new owners. 

The clinic provides outpatient mental health services including individual and group 
therapy and case management to children and families in the Mission and Visitation 
Valley/Bayview areas. A decision was made in early 2000 to split the clinic in two parts 
because we were not able to locate one site of sufficient size to accommodate the staff 
and, since the focus of services was in two separate neighborhoods, to provide 
improved client accessibility. One half of the clinic moved to 4527 Mission Street in 
June 2000. We are now seeking to relocate the remaining staff. The clinic will also 
continue to maintain a large group therapy/community outreach meeting space at 300 
Bennington Street that it has occupied since 1978. Neither of the two new sites has a 
space big enough to accommodate more than 10 people in a group setting. 

100 Blanken will be built out by the owners to our specifications at a cost of $176,880. 
The City will pay a lump sum of $76,880 upon completion of the improvements and the 
remaining $100,000 plus interest at 10% will be amortized over the life of the lease. 
The total cost of improvements including interest is $204,380. 

I have included a chart that compares the current and proposed costs, square footage 
and occupancy. 

Please let me know if you need additional information. 



57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 8 -File 01-1481 

Department: 

Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Description: 



District Attorney 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that assistance to victims of crime and education in 
community anti-street violence can continue to be 
practically performed for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program by a private contractor for a 
lower cost than similar services performed by City 
employees. 

Victim Witness Services for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program 

Victim Witness Services for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program consist of assisting lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, and transgender victims and witnesses in 
cooperating with the criminal justice system in 
prosecutions. 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services that can be 
practically performed for a lower cost than similar work 
performed by City employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for Victim 
Witness Services for FY 2001-2002 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 



City-Operated Service Costs 
Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 

Contractual Services Cost 

Estimated Savings 



Lowest 
Salary 
Step 
$124,207 
34.018 



Highest 
Salary 
Step 
$151,601 
38.325 



$158,225 $189,926 

(121,015) (122.621) 

$37,210 $67,305 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. A contract for Victim Witness Services was first 

certified under Proposition J as required by Charter 
Section 10.104 in 1981 and such services have been 
provided by an outside contractor, Community United 
Against Violence (CUAV), a non-profit corporation, since 
that time. According to Ms. Linda Alexander of the 
District Attorney's Office, since 1981 CUAV has been the 
sole provider of Victim Witness Services including (a) 
assistance to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
victims of crime and (b) hate-crime prevention services 
and therefore CUAV is uniquely qualified to provide such 
services. 

2. The Contractual Services Cost used for the purpose of 
the analysis is based on (a) CUAVs estimated FY 2001- 
2002 costs to provide victim witness services, and (b) the 
salary and fringe benefits of 0.1 FTE 8131 Victim Witness 
Investigator II position in the District Attorney's Office to 
monitor the contract. Ms. Alexander notes that FY 2001- 
2002 would be the 20 th year that the City has contracted 
with CUAV for victim witness services. 

3. The Attachment to this report, provided by the District 
Attorney's Office, is the Controller's supplemental 
questionnaire, with the responses from the District 
Attorney's Office. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






Attachment 



CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

DEPARTMENT: District Attorney's Office 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Community United Against Violence (CUAV) 

CONTRACT PERIOD: July 1 , 2001 thru June 30, 2002 

(1 ) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 
No on performed these services prior to CUAV. 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 

There have not been and will not be any City employees laid off as a result of the contract. 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent of services to be contracted out? 
N/A 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an ongoing request for 
contracting out? 

The services have been contracted out since 1981 . This is an on-going contract with annual requests. 

(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each subsequent 
year? 

The contract predates Proposition J. The contract has been certified each year since Proposition J 
passed. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

CUAV is a 501 C 3 non-profit. I do not believe that it falls under MBE/WBE categories (as it is not 
"owned"). 50% of the Board are people of color. 

(8) Does the proposed contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 
Yes, CUAV provides health insurance for its employees. 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same benefits 
provided to employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed contractor comply with the 
Domestic Partners ordinance? 

CUAV (the proposed contractor) complies with the Domestic Partnership ordinance, providing benefits to 
both spouses and domestic partners. 

(10) Does the proposed contractor pay meet the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance? 
Yes. 



Department Representative: Linda Alexander 

Telephone Number: (41 5) 551-9543 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 9 -File 01-1426 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Airport 

Resolution approving Modification No. 1 to the On- 
Airport Project Development Agreement as it relates 
to the On-Airport portion of the Bay Area Rapid 
Transit (BART) to the Airport Transit Project, which is 
by and between the City and County of San Francisco, 
acting by and through the Airport Commission, and 
the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 

On June 4, 1994, San Francisco voters approved 
Proposition I, a policy ballot measure supporting the 
extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 
System to the San Francisco International Airport 
Terminal and directing the Airport Commission and 
other San Francisco officers and agencies to take all 
actions necessary to implement this BART to the 
Airport Transit Project. The 8.2-mile BART to the 
Airport Transit Project includes: (a) a north-south 
mainline extension of 7.4 miles from the Colma BART 
Station to a BART/CalTrain Station in Millbrae, south 
of the Airport; and, (b) a BART-San Francisco 
International Airport Extension Project of a 0.8 mile 
east-west aerial stub, perpendicular to the 
CalTrain/BART mainline, which will terminate at the 
departure level of the new International Terminal. The 
0.8-mile portion of the BART to the Airport Transit 
Project includes a combined BART, Airport Rail 
Transit System (AirTrain) station at the International 
Terminal, which is referred to as the On-Airport 
Project. According to Ms. Karen Watson from the 
Airport, in 1994 the City projected a total City cost of 
up to $200 million for the On-Airport portion of the 
BART extension to the Airport 1 . 

In March of 1998 the Board of Supervisors approved 
the subject On-Airport Project Development 
Agreement (File 98-1) between the City, acting by and 
through the Airport Commission, and BART. The 



1 The Airport has issued Airport Revenue Bonds in the par amount of $220,000,000 to finance 
the $200,000,000 for the On-Airport portion of the BART to the Airport Transit Project (See 
Comment 2). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

purpose of the On-Airport Project Development 
Agreement (Development Agreement) between BART 
and the Airport was to establish the rights and 
responsibilities of the Airport and BART during the 
construction of the On-Airport BART/AirTrain station. 
Attachraant I, provided by the Airport, summarizes 
the key provisions of the On-Airport Development 
Agreement between BART and the Airport. 

Ms. Watson advises that the $200,000,000 was 
budgeted between the facilities to be constructed by 
the Airport and operating systems to be installed by 
BART. Ms. Watson further advises that preliminary 
budgets prepared by the Airport estimated that the 
Airport's obligation for the BART Fixed Facilities 
construction costs would be approximately 
$113,000,000 and the $87,000,000 balance 
($200,000,000 less $113,000,000) was allocated for the 
Airport's share of the costs of the BART Operating 
Systems under BART's Full Funding Grant Agreement 
with the U.S. Department of Transportation. 
Attachment II, provided by Ms. Watson, defines Fixed 
Facilities costs and BART Operating Systems Costs. 
As outlined in Attachment I, provided by Ms. Watson, 
BART is responsible for any Fixed Facilities 
construction cost overruns. If BART fails to pay for 
these cost overruns, the Airport may elect (a) to not 
proceed with the BART to the Airport Transit Project, 
as discussed in Attachment I, or (b) to deduct costs 
from the Airport's obligation to pay for the Airport's 
portion of the BARTs Operating Systems costs. 
Attachment I, provided by Ms. Watson, also explains 
the Airport's obligation to pay for BARTs Operating 
Systems costs and Fixed Facilities costs. 

As shown in Attachment III, provided by Ms. Watson, 
pertaining to the Airport's cost obligations, the 
Airport's obligation for the BART Fixed Facilities 
construction costs are projected to cost $125,600,000 at 
completion, or $12,600,000 more than the originally 
budgeted $113,000,000. Also, as shown in Attachment 
III, the Airport's obligation for BART's Operating 
Systems costs are projected to be no more than 
$74,400,000 or at least $12,600,000 less than the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

originally budgeted $87,000,000. Ms. Watson advises 
that BART has requested that the Airport use the 
Airport's forecasted savings of $12,600,000 from the 
Airport's obligation for BART Operating Systems costs 
to fund the Airport's estimated $12,600,000 in 
projected overruns for BART Fixed Facilities 
construction costs. Attachment III, also identifies the 
Airport's expenditures to date as well as the Airport's 
forecasted expenditures for both the Airport's 
obligations for the BART Fixed Facilities and 
Operating Systems costs for the On-Airport Project. 

The subject requested Modification No. 1 to the On- 
Airport project Development Agreement between 
BART and the Airport would modify the Development 
Agreement to permit the Airport Director to cover any 
or all of the construction overruns for the Airport's 
obligations for the BART to the Airport Transit Project 
Fixed Facilities construction budget through a 
reduction in the Airport's payments resulting from the 
projected savings for the Airport's obligation for the 
BART Operating Systems costs. Any overruns above 
and beyond $200 million are solely payable by BART. 
Ms. Watson advises that the Airport Commission 
approved the subject modification to the Development 
Agreement on July 3, 2001. 

Comments: 1. Attachment III describes the procedures that the 

Airport Director would use to reallocate the projected 
savings from the Operating Systems budget toward 
the overrun in the Fixed Facilities budget. Such a 
reallocation would not result in increased costs to the 
Airport. The Budget Analyst notes that any increased 
appropriation of funds for this project beyond the 
$200,000,000 previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors would require separate appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Ms. Watson reports that the Board of Supervisors 
approved issuance of $220 million in Airport Revenue 
Bonds for the On-Airport Project in October of 1996, 
June of 1997 and February of 1999 (Files 170-96-8, 
170-97-6 and 99-02-06). Ms. Watson states that the 
Airport thereby funded the $200,000,000 On-Airport 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

portion of the BAET to the Airport Transit Project 
using net proceeds of the Airport Revenue Bonds 
issued in a par amount of $220,000,000 under the 
Airport Master resolution as amended. According to 
Ms. Watson, the total debt service on such 30-year 
bonds is to be repaid from Airport revenues. The 
average annual debt service on the bonds authorized 
by the Board of Supervisors is approximately 
$15,674,000 annually for total principal and interest 
payments of approximately $463,300,000 2 over 30 
years to be paid from general Airport revenues. 

3. As shown in Attachment IV, prepared by BART, the 
full cost of the BART to the Airport Transit Project is 
$1,483,200,000, funded from the following sources: 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

Full Funding Grant $750,000,000 

Airport Net Revenue Bond Proceeds 200,000,000 

State Funding 152,000,000 

SamTrans 171,000,000 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 26,500,000 

BART 183.700.000 

Total $1,483,200,000 

As shown in Attachment IV, BART reports that the 
BART to the Airport Transit Project is scheduled to be 
operational by the Fall of 2002. 

4. As previously noted, the subject proposed 
Modification No. 1 to the Development Agreement will 
not result in any additional costs to the Airport. The 
proposed Modification No. 1 to the On-Airport Project 
Development Agreement between BART and the 
Airport will only reallocate savings from the Airport's 
obligations for the BART Operating Systems costs to 
the Airport's obligations for the overrun in the BART 
Fixed Facilities budget and will not change any other 
terms of the Development Agreement. 

5. Page 1, line 4 in the title of the proposed resolution 
incorrectly states "potion" instead of "portion." 



2 The final year's debt service will be partially paid from the balance of a debt-service reserve 
funded from the $220,000,000 bond issuance gross proceeds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment 7 above, amend line 4 

on page 1 of the proposed resolution by replacing the 
word, "potion" with the word, "portion" so that the 
phrase reads, " the On-Airport portion of the BART to 
San Francisco Airport Extension project." 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Aug. 16.2001 11:27AM SFIA BDC 876 253! 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 2 



2418BP. 2/10J 



San FrandKO International Airport 






P.O. 8ox S097 

San Francisco, CA &4U3 

Tel 650.321. 5000 

Fax650.a21.S005 

www.flysracom 



AIRPORT 

COMMISSION 

CITY ANO COUNTY 

Of SAN FRANCISCO 

WILLIE L. SHOWN. JR. 
MAYO* 

HENRY E.BEJMAN 
PfltSIOlHT 

LAMIY MAZ701A 

via mcsioim 

MICHAEL S.STRUN5KT 

LINDA S.CKAYTON 

CAHYL ITO 



JOHN I.MARTIN 
AlffOtTOl'tCTOt 



TO: 



FROM; 



Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 

Karen Watson ^ 

Assistant Deputy Airport Director 

Business &. Finance Division 



DATE: August 15, 2001 



SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT I 



Development Agreement 



Purpose: 



To establish the rights and responsibilities of the Airport and BART 
during the construction of the on- Airport station. 

Key Provisions: 

Provide for Airport expenditure of up to $200 million (previously agreed 
to in the BART/ Airport Agreement, dated 10/30/96 and approved by the 
Board). 

Airport to construct the BART station and related fixed facilities in 
conjunction with the Airport's Master Plan construction (estimated budget 
ofS113 million). 

BART to install the Operating Systems and invoice the Airport for the 
costs of the Airport station (estimated budget of S87 million). 

BART responsible for unfunded overrun costs; if BART fails to pay, 
Airport may elect not to proceed with fixed facilities work or to credit 
costs from the Airport's obligation to pay for the Operating Systems. 

BART will pay rent of $2.5 million a year for 50 years, commencing on 
the date on which the Airport's debt service on the project commences, or 
July 1, 2001, whichever is later. 



66 



Aug. 16.2001 11:27AM SFIA BDC 876 2531 Attachtnent T No. 2418 P. 3/10 



Page 2 of 2 



Harvey Rose 
August 15, 2001 
Page 2 



The Airport may deduct from the Annual Service Payment to the City an 
amount equal to any amounts past due for the License Period rent, and 
maintenance/repair obligations payable by BART under the License, 
beginning no sooner that July 1, 2001. In turn, BART agrees to the City 
withholding any payments due BART from the City in amounts equal to 
the Airport's deduction from the Annual Service Payment. 

If BART is permanently unable to operate the Airport BART station as a 
result of B ART's default and the Agreements are terminated, then BART 
must either continue paying the annual rent until the Airport has received 
an aggregate reimbursement of S125 million or pay the Airport the amount 
adequate to retire all outstanding financings issued by the Airport for 
BART. 



67 



Aug. 16. 2001 11:28AM SFIA BDC 876 2531 Attachment II No - 24! P P ' 5/1] 



San Francisco International Airport 



P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, CA 9415.8 

Tel 650.82i.S00O 

Fax 650.821.5005 

www.flysfo.com 



JH'OII 

COMMISSION 

CITY ANO COUNTY 

Of SAN FKANClSCO 



TO: 



FROM; 



Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst . 

Karen Watson 

Assistant Deputy Airport Director 

Business & Finance Division 



DATE: August 15, 2001 



SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT 



WILLIE L. SflOWN, Jfl. 
MAYOR 

HENRY E.BCRMAN 
Mcsiosxr 

LARAY MAZZOLA 
Vtlt CHf JIOfWT 

MICHAELS. STRUNS«r 

UNOAS.CRAYTON 

CARYL ITO 



JOHN L.MARTIN 
JU*rotr oimctoh 



THE ON-AJRPORT BART PROJECT 



Preliminary budgets were prepared estimating the Airport's construction costs to 
be approximately $113 million and the S87 million balance was allocated to the 
Airport's share of the BART Operating Systems under BART's Full Funding 
Grant Agreement with the Department of Transportation. The BART Fixed 
Facilities costs include the BART freeway overpasses, the combined 
BART/Air Train Cmideway, the combined BART/AirTrain Station (Concourse H), 
the "Link Building" connecting the BART Station to the International Terminal, 
and the International Terminal Enhancements. The BART Operating Systems, 
include the communications and ground control systems, the traction power 
systems and security and special systems. 



68 



Aug. 16. 



29AM SFIA BDC 876 2531 



Attachment III* 



2418B?, 9/1 



San Francisco International Airport 



ilDOIT 

COMMISSION 

CITY ANO COUNTY 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 

wiuie L.BROWN, JR. 
MAI OK 

HEMRY L8l«MHN 

PflfSIDEVT 

UJIr MA220LA 

VICE psesiocur 

michasL S.STRUNSKY 

LINDAS. CRAYTON 

CARYL ITO 



JOHN L MARTIN 
AiaPQRT OIRE CTOH 



P.O.Sox 8097 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Tel 650.821.5000 

Fax GS0. 821. 5005 

www.flysfoxom 



TO: 



FROM: 



Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 

Karen Watson *^ 

Assistant Deputy Airport Director 

Business & Finance Division 



DATE: August 15, 2001 



SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT 



As of July 31, 2001 a total of SI 19.7 million has been expended to fund the 
BART Fixed Facilities, $6.7 million above the initial $113 million budget. A total 
of S39.8 million has been expended on the BART Operating Systems, of which 
$38.8 million has been approved for payment and $1 million is being reviewed. A 
total of $5.9 million in reimbursements due BART from the $38.8 million . 
approved for payment has been retained by the Airport pending payment of the 
Fixed Facilities overrun by BART in accordance with the current Development 
Agreement. This modification, which reallocates money to increase the Fixed 
Facilities budget, will permit resuming reimbursements to BART up to an amount 
not to exceed $74.4 million. 

The expenditure forecasts for the BART Fixed Facilities is currently S125.6 
million and BART's Operating Systems forecast is no more than $74.4 million. 

The proposed modification permits the Airport Director to cover any or all of the 
construction overruns for the Fixed Facilities through a reduction in the Airport's 
payment for its share of the Operating Systems. Upon BART's submittal of an 
invoice for Operating Systems reimbursement the Airport will make an 
assessment and will only reimburse BART to the extent that there are sufficient 
funds remaining in the Operating Systems budget to cover forecast cost overruns 
in the Fixed Facilities work. No invoice from BART will be paid to the extent 
that the payment would cumulatively exceed $200 million. 

Ms. Watson advises that granting the Airport Director the authority to transfer 
funds at his direction ensures that the SFIA will not spend any more than the $200 
million originally budgeted for the On- Airport portion of the Project. 



69 



Aug. 16. 2001 11:30AM SFIA BDC 876 2531 Attachment IV No. 24ljfc 1 0/lOH 

• , Pape 1 of 2 



San Francisco International Airport 



P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Tel 650.a21.50OO 

Fax 650.821.5005 

www.flysfD.com 



AIICORT 

COMMISSION 

CITY ANO COUNTY 

0' SAN FRANCISCO 

WILUt LiROWN.JH. 

MAron 



TO: 



FROM: 



Har/ey Rose 
Budget Analyst 



fr) 



DATE: August 15, 2001 



Karen Watson 

Assistant Deputy Airport Director 

Business & Finance Division 



SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT 

BART SFO EXTENSION BUDGET (Smillions) 
As approved by the Federal Transit Administration on June 1, 2000 



HENRY e. 8EXMAN 
PHkiiatHT 

IARAY MAZZCLA 
vice PKCS1DIHT 

MICMAJL3. JTBUNSKT 

LlNOA S.CRAYTON 

CARYL ITO 



;OHN L MARTIN 

MRPoaT Qinecraa 



Major Costs 


Baseline 
Estimate 
June 2000 


Expended 
Through 
June 2001 


Construction 

Engineering, Design, CO, DSDC, Other 

3rd Party Costs 

Insurance 

Force Account 

BART Project Adrwiistration 

Contingencies 

ROW 

Financs 

SFIA 


799.08 

179.00 
27.00 

10.00 
54.60 
69.38 

178.50 
42.64 

123.00 


601.33 

141.47 

19.05 
0.02 
44.09 
0.00 
166.74 
21.37 
117.20 


ITOTAL PROJECT 


1,433.20 


1.111.26 



A3 of Jury 31, 2001, the Project i6 84% complete and is scheduled for revenue 
service in Fall 2002. 



70 



AUG. 15. 2001 g:53flM 



Attachment IV 
Page 2 of 2 



BART - SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT EXTENSION 
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING = $1,483.2 MILLION 



FTA 
$750 M 
50.6% 



MTC 

$26.5 M 

1.8% 



SamTrans 
$171 M 
11.5% 



BART 

$183.7 M 

12.4% 




State 

$152 M 

10.2% 



SFIA 
$200 M 
13.5% 






71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 10 -File 01-1445 

Departments: Department of Administrative Services 

San Francisco Convention Facilities 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution authorizing the Director of 
Administrative Services to execute amendment(s) to 
the design agreement for the new Moscone Center 
Expansion Project, which would increase the total 
agreement by $1,000,000 from $14,026,326 to 
$15,026,326. 

On May 16, 1997, based on the results of a 
competitive request for proposal process, the Director 
of Administrative Services entered into a contract 
with Gensler/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi Architects 
(Gensler) for architectural and engineering design 
and related services for the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project in the amount of up to 
$10,960,596. This architectural and engineering 
design contract was not approved by the Board of 
Supervisors because, according to Mr. Leonard Tom, 
Director of Finance for the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project, only $8,000,000 of the 
$10,960,596 was available to be certified for this 
design contract at the contract award time. Section 
9.118(b) of the City's Charter requires that all 
agreements in excess often years or $10,000,000 and 
subsequent amendments in excess of $500,000 be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ted Lakey 
of the City Attorney's Office advises that the 
Department was in compliance with the City's 
Charter provisions. 

According to Mr. Tom, the basic scope of the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project was enlarged in September 
of 1997, when the project was extended to Fourth 
Street, the gross square footage increased from 
570,000 square feet to 780,000 square feet, an 
increase of 210,000 square feet, or 36.8 percent and 
the net useable floor area was increased by 60,000 
square feet, from 240,000 square feet to 300,000 
square feet. As a result of the floor area being 
increased by 60,000 square feet, requiring the 
purchase of additional land, the project's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
72 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

construction budget increased from $144,000,000 to 
$191,000,000, land acquisition and related costs 
increased from $71,500,000 to $98,300,000 and the 
project completion date was extended by eight 
months from June of 2002 to February of 2003. 

Between May 16, 1997 and July of 1999, an 
approximately 26-month period, the Director of 
Administrative Services approved 11 modifications to 
the Gensler contract, increasing the amount certified 
for this contract by $1,276,326, from the original 
$8,000,000 to $9,276,326. In October of 1999, the 
Department received approval from the Board of 
Supervisors for an amendment to the then existing 
$9,526,326 design agreement with Gensler to 
increase the contract by $4,500,000 to $14,026,326 
(File 99-1712). Mr. Tom advises that this 
amendment was submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors because it resulted in the first time that 
the contract had funds certified in an amount which 
exceeded $10 million and the amendment was for 
greater than $500,000. 

Mr. Tom advises that, since the original May 16, 
1997 architectural, engineering and design contract 
was entered into with Gensler, there have been a 
total of 24 contract modifications. Attachment I 
provided by Mr. Tom, lists the original design 
contract for $10,960,596 and the subsequent 24 
modifications, which have now resulted in a total 
contract amount of $14,089,073. As previously noted, 
the Board of Supervisors approved an increase in the 
contract of up to $14,026,326, which is $62,747 less 
than the $14,089,073 amount currently included in 
the Gensler contract. As described in Attachment IV, 
provided by Mr. George Wong of the City Attorney's 
Office, in accordance with Charter Section 9.118, 
"the department's execution of modifications do not 
require board approval, provided the total modified 
amount does not exceed $14,526,326." 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Director 
of the Administrative Services to enter into two or 
more additional modifications to the existing 
$14,089,073 design contract at a total cost not to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

exceed $1,000,000, resulting in a total contract 
amount not to exceed $15,026,326 for Gensler to 
provide 16 additional design items of work that may- 
be required from September of 2001 through 
February of 2003, which is anticipated to be the final 
construction phase of the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project. 

The total costs of the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, including design, construction, land 
acquisition and other related costs, were originally 
estimated at $267,000,000 in May of 1997. As shown 
in Attachment II, provided by Mr. Tom, the above- 
noted expansion of 60,000 square feet to the Project 
resulted in revised estimated costs of $343,000,000 
by the Fall of 1999. According to Mr. Tom, the 
current estimated Project costs have increased to 
$358,200,000. Attachment II contains a breakdown 
of (a) the original $267,000,000 Project costs, (b) the 
revised $343,000,000 costs by the Fall of 1999 and 
the current Project estimated costs of $358,200,000. 
Attachment II also contains a brief explanation for 
the major reasons for these increases in the Project 
budget as well as the current status of the Project. 
Mr. Tom states "Currently, project construction is on 
time and within budget. We expect to open for 
operations in the Spring of 2003." 

However, as shown in Attachment II, the current 
estimated $358,200,000 Project cost includes 
$28,700,000 for architecture and construction 
management, which includes (a) $15,026,326 for the 
subject design contract, including the proposed 
request for a $1,000,000 modification, (b) 
approximately $7,800,000 for a separate construction 
management contract, (c) approximately $4,000,000 
for City construction management staff, (d) 
approximately $1,000,000 for a pre-construction 
management contract, (e) $600,000 for a graphics 
contract and (f) approximately $250,000 of other 
miscellaneous costs. Although not stated in 
Attachment II, the Budget Analyst notes that the 
subject request to increase the design contract with 
Gensler by $1,000,000 from $14,026,326 to 
$15,026,326 results in 41.7 percent of the total $2.4 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

million increase in the Architecture/Construction 
Management costs from $26.3 million reported in the 
Fall of 1999 to the currently estimated $28.7 million. 

Budget: Attachment III, provided by Mr. Ray Fong of the 

Department of Public Works (DPW), includes a list of 
the 16 additional design tasks and the estimated 
related costs that may be required, for the proposed 
contract modifications requested in a total amount of 
up to $1,000,000 in the design agreement with 
Gensler. 

Attachment III, also contains a list of the 
construction items, totaling an estimated 
$10,085,000, which would be required as a result of 
the subject 16 additional design items. As discussed 
in Attachment III, Mr. Tom estimates that, except 
for the solar panel power system construction costs 
currently estimated at $4,200,000, the remaining 
$5,885,000 ($10,085,000 less $4,200,000) of 
construction costs would be funded with Moscone 
Center Expansion Project construction contingency 
funds, currently budgeted at $16.9 million, or ten 
percent of the total $169 million construction 
contract (part of the $187 million costs for 
Demohtion/Construction/Furniture, Fixtures and 
Equipment (FFE)), which is included in the total 
$358,200,000 Project costs, as shown in Attachment 
III. The Budget Analyst notes that the Construction 
Contingency costs increased by $4,100,000 from 
$12,800,000 in the Fall of 1999, to $16,900,000 
currently. Yet, in the Fall of 1999, 
Demolition/Construction/FFE was estimated at 
$191,000,000 and is currently estimated at 
$187,000,000, or $4,000,000 less. Therefore, during 
this period, contingency costs increased by 
$4,100,000 or 32 percent while 

Demolition/Construction/FFE decreased by 2.1 
percent. 

Attachment II also identifies for each of these same 
three time periods (May of 1997, Fall of 1999 and 
currently) the funding sources and amounts to be 
used to pay for the Moscone Center Expansion 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Project. Attachment II also includes an explanation 
of each of the funding sources. 

Comments: 1. In March of 1996, San Francisco voters authorized 

the issuance of up to $157,500,000 of Lease Revenue 
Bonds for the expansion of the Moscone Center. 
These lease revenue bonds were issued in November 
of 2000. As shown in Attachment II, a total of 
approximately $133 million of these lease revenue 
bond funds will be available for use on the project, 
including approximately $115 million for 
construction costs, and $18 million for land 
acquisition. The balance of $24,500,000 
($157,520,000 less $133,000,000) is for the Lease 
Revenue Bond financing costs, such as capitalized 
interest, capital reserve fund and bond issuance 
costs. 

2. In August of 1996, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized an increase in the Hotel Tax rate from 12 
percent to 14 percent, with the additional revenues 
to be earmarked for the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project. In November of 1998, the San Francisco 
voters reaffirmed the increase of the City's Hotel 
Taxes to 14 percent, with such revenues being 
deposited to the City's General Fund, but not being 
dedicated specifically for the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project. As identified in Attachment II, to 
date, the Board of Supervisors has appropriated 
$109,800,000 of General Fund revenues (Hotel 
Taxes) to the Moscone Center Expansion Project. 
Assuming the total current estimated project costs of 
the Moscone Center Expansion Project of 
$358,200,000, the Project will require a total of 
$149,800,000 of General Fund (Hotel Tax) revenues, 
or an additional appropriation of $40,000,000 
($149,800,000 less $109,800,000) from the City's 
General Fund (Hotel Tax), as descibed in Attachment 
II. Mr. Tom advises that any additional costs beyond 
the currently estimated $358,200,000 for the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project will need to be 
funded with additional General Fund appropriations. 

3. Mr. Tom advises that the proposed resolution 
would provide for two or more modifications to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

existing agreement because, as shown in Attachment 
III, the DPW Project Manager has identified 16 
possible areas where an increase in design services 
may be needed beween September of 2001 and 
February 2003, during the final construction phase 
of the project. However, Mr. Tom advises that the 
decisions in terms of the need in each area have not 
been finalized. Furthermore, Mr. Fong advises that 
the actual amounts that would be required for each 
design item have not yet been determined. Therefore, 
Mr. Tom advises that, if the Board of Supervisors 
approves the requested resolution to increase the 
design contract by up to $1,000,000, the 
modifications would be made by the Department to 
the existing design contract using funds on an as- 
needed basis. 

4. The Budget Analyst questions approving a request 
for an additional $1,000,000 of design services at this 
stage of the project, since (1) the construction of this 
project began in August of 2000, and now has 
approximately 18 more months until completion, (2) 
the Financial Director advises that final decisions in 
terms of which specific design requirements are 
needed have not yet been finalized, (3) the Project 
Manager advises that the actual amounts required 
for many of the design activities have not been 
determined and may be less than estimated, (4) 
these 16 design items will result in a total estimated 
additional construction cost of $10,085,000, (5) the 
proposed increased authorization of the design 
contract will result in higher estimated design, 
contingency and ultimately Project costs, and (6) any 
additional costs beyond the currently estimated 
$358,200,000 for the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project will need to be funded with additional 
General Fund appropriations. 

5. Furthermore, the Budget Analyst questions why 
many of the 16 design items listed in Attachment III 
were not included in the original specifications for 
the architect and design contractors, since the City's 
experienced project management team should have 
anticipated many of these needs from the outset, 
such as: (1) $30,000 for tenant improvements to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Howard Street spaces for the City's construction 
offices, (2) $40,000 for development of special 
occupancies and related Fire Department permits, 
especially given that the existing Moscone Center 
has 45 of these pre-approved occupancy plans on file 
with the Fire Department, (3) $50,000 for 
engineering and integration of the City's Reclaimed 
Water plan, since this regulation has not changed 
since the beginning of this project, (4) $75,000 for 
general space planning not previously anticipated, 
(5) $70,000 for consultant travel to manufacturing 
sites outside the Bay Area, (6) $45,000 to select 
equipment for new vendors that will be using the 
building, and (7) $160,000 to exercise an option by 
the City to participate in additional project liability 
insurance, which the City paid in 1997, the first year 
of the contract. 

6. The Department also acknowledges that several of 
the 16 requested design items may not be necessary 
because, for example, the requested $65,000 of 
design services for the integration of solar panel 
power supply, will depend on whether the Public 
Utilities Commission (PUC) can secure an estimated 
$4.2 million of State grants and other funds to 
actually install, construct and maintain the system. 
The requested $50,000 of design services for 
engineering and studies related to the adjoining 888 
Howard Street Hotel may not be necessary because 
the Hotel may not be approved by the City, or ever 
actually constructed. Also, the requested $60,000 of 
design services for studies and solutions for the Fifth 
and Mission Parking Garage expansion will depend 
on whether or not the Garage's expansion involves 
the adjacent Minna Street, which has not yet been 
determined. Furthermore, the requested $60,000 of 
design services to comply with new energy or 
conservation measures that may or may not be 
enacted by the Board of Supervisors or the State and 
therefore may not be necessary. 

Recommendation: Given all of these concerns outlined in Comment 
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 above, the Budget Analyst cannot 
recommend approval of the requested $1,000,000 of 
additional design services at this time. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



_08/16/01 THU 11:37 FAI 415 978 5913 



MOSCONE EIP PROJN PROJ 



®004 



Attachment I 



MOSCONE CENJEREXPANSJON PROJECT 
a&e CONTRACT MODS/ENCUMBRANCES 



Contract 
Action 

Original Contract 
Mod #1 
Mod #2 
Mod #3 
Mod #4 
Mod #5 
Mod #6 
Mod #7 
Mod #8 
Mod #9 
Mod #10 
Mod #11 
Mod #12 
Mod #1 3 
Mod #14 
Mod #15 
Mod #16 
Mod #17 
Mod #18 
Mod #19 
Mod #20 
Mod #21 
Mod #22 
Mod #23 
Mod #24 



Description 



Deleted Services 
;Miscellaneous Changes 

Mos cone Telecommunications (TEECOM) 
| General Scope of Services 

Steel Connection Testing 
ITEECOM Additional Services _ 
"Vehicle Exhaust Model KJEO'maTRIX) 
Jwind Test Studies (RWDI) 

Basement Mechanical System 
'Structural Peer Review Additional Services 

Worker Healt^Evaluation-Vehicle Exhaust ■_ 

Correction per City Attorney"* 

Const ructi on Administration 

Misc . (Art, Life Safety, Cafeteria, D ampe rs! 

Misc. (Life Safety, Minna St. tafking sjgns, et alV 



Date 
Executed I 

~5?l"6797J 

T" "8/13/971 

10/1 5/98 1 ' ' 

_8/5/98 r 

1/277991 

"j_" 2/7/99 1 

" • ' 2/1 5/99 1" " 

'"]_" 3/15/99!"" _" 

"" 3/22/9 9"] 



20,960,596.00 I 
(334,683-62) 

16,863.00 ' 
"i, 098,000.00 ■ 
""335,500.00", 
'"' 62,50000] 

15,586.00" 



^ ¥ 



5/7/99 _ 
5/6/991 
7/16/99' 
" 1/9/00 

l/i'a/od 
2/1T/60 

5/9/06 



6/14/00; 



Deleted Services 

Misc. (additionai'design) * ^\^J^£. 

Construction Administration (miscadditional) j 12/11/00' 



'Temp. Crane Load calculations 
Construction Administration (additional) 

I Construction Administrationjadditional) 
Construction Administration (Kitchen/A V) 

jConst. Admin.' (CADD/floor Box, AV spec) 
Const, Admin. (Curtain Wall, AV spec) 



2/6/61T 
3/6/Olt "" 
3/2 3/6 1 1 " 

4/4/61 !" 
5/14/01 : 

"6/l/Olf 



j Total 



Aggregate 
"Value 



A&Emodsum1 
8/16/01 

Certified 
■ Value* (FAMlS) 



1 1,550.00 [ 

4,1 83.00 

65,i"75'"00 j 

i,653."6a ( 

(2,960,596'W 

3,833,596.00 ' 

499,461.00 ! 

" 424,980.00 ' 

(24j_,6_75.00)" 

52,822.25 ' 
387694".bo . 
3)850.00 j 
""7,065.00 
4,888.00 I 
18,800.00 ' 
_34,940.00 I 
_ _ ~" 135,925.00 ; 

"~~1 4,089, 672.631 



10^960,596.00 ■ 
10,625,912.38 ' 

10,625,912.38 ' 
10,642,775.38 ' 
11,740,775,38 ' 
12,076,275.38 j 
Y2,'l38,775.38_ 
12,154,3 61.38 I 
"l 2,1 6,911-38 1 
"1.2,176,094.38 j" 
12,235,269.33 
12,236,922.38 
9,276,326.38 ' 
13,109,922.38 ' 
13,609,383.38 ' 
14,034,363.38 
13,>92,688.38 : 
13,845,510.63 ' 
1 3,883,604.63 ■ 
13,887,454 63 1 
13^894,519.63 \ 
13,899,407.63 ' 
13,91 8,207. 63 
13,953,147.63 : 
14,089,072.63 ' 



8,000,000.00 
7,66S,316.38 
7,665,316.38 
7,682,179.38 
8,780,179.38 
9,115,679,36 
9,178,179.38 
9,193,765.38 
9,205,315.38 
9,209,498.38 
9,274,673.38 
9,276,326.38 
9,276,326.38 
13,109,922.38 
13,609,383.38 
14,034,363.38 
13,792,688.38 
13,845,510.63 
13,883,604.63 
13,887,454.63 
13,894,519.63 
13,899,407.63 
13,918,207,63 
13,953,147.63 
14,0B9,072.63 



• Due to limited fundj a partial certification b y the Controller of the agreed to amount was processed in June 1997. The 
S8, 000,000 amount was sufficient for the architectural team to complete the design phase of the work (original building 
scope). ; ; 

* * In October 1 999, the City Attorney determined thatjhe contract agreement had to be the same as the value certified by 

the Controller. A deductive modification was processed (mod #l2)_to bring the contract into balance with the 
encumbrance certified in FAMIS. 



79 



ua/j.o /ui iau 11:36 FAX 415 978 5913 



City and County of San Francisco 



MOSCONE EXP PROJN PROJ 

Attachment II 
Page i ot 2 

San Francisco Convention Facilities 



1)002 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 

Jack Moerschbaecher 
Direcior 

MEMORANDUM 



OT- 
TO 

FM 
RE 



Aug. 16,2001 

Debra Newman .- 

Leonard Tom ^ » 

MCEP Design Contract Authorization Increase Aug. 2001 



Per your request, following is a summary of the total project budget and funding sources for May 1997, Fall 1999 
and June 2001. May 1997 represents the original scope of the Project. Fall 1999 represents the expanded 
scope of the Project (extension to Fourth Street). June 2001 is the current total budget for the project. 



Category 

Demolition/Construction/FFE 

Construction Contingency 

Offsite infrastructure 

Architecture/Construction Management 

Consultants 

City Depts., Permits, Fees, Art Projects 

Subtotal 

Land Acquisition & Related Costs 

Total Project Cost 



May 1997 

$144.0 million 
$ 14.4 million 
$ 3.4 million 
$ 22.2 million 
$ 1 .2 million 
S 10.3 million 

$195.5 million 

$ 71.5 million 

$267.0 million 



Fall 1999 

$191.0 million 
$ 12.8 million 
$ 2.8 million 
$ 26.3 million 
$ 0.7 million 
$ 11.1 million 

$244,7 million 

$ 98.3 million 

$343.0 million 



June 2001 

$187.0 million 
$ 16,9 million 
$ 3.8 million 
$ 28.7 million 
$ 0.3 million 
$ 11.0 million 

5247.7 million 

$110.5 million 

$358.2 million 



Funding Sources 

Revenue Bonds (Construction) 

Revenue Bonds (Land Acquisition) 

Hotel Tax Revenue (Land Acquisition) 

Hotel Tax Revenue 

Convention Facilities Fund Balance 

Rents/misc./other 

Total 



$115.0 million 
$ - 

$ 71.5 million 
$ 67.0 million 
$ 13.5 million 
$ - 

$267.0 million 



$115.0 million 
$ - 

$ 98.3 million 
$ 81.3 million 
$ 48.4 million 



$343.0 million 



$115.0 million 
$ 18.0 million 
$ 92.5 million 
$ 57.3 million 
$ 58.6 million 
$ 16.8 million 

$358.2 million 



The major cause of the increase between May 1997 and Fall 1999 was the change in scope of the Project 
(extension to Fourth Street). The gross square footage of the building increased by 37%. Project duration was 
extended by more than a year. Land acquisition costs were estimated to increase by about $27 million dollars. 
The eminent domain lawsuits had not yet gone to trial. The design and construction management budget had to 
be increased to accommodate the increased building scope and extended duration (original completion was June 
2002) of the Project. The construction contingency budget and other minor items were reduced to keep the total 
project budget within the reasonably expected availability of funding for the Project. 

Between Fall 1999 and June 2001, the Project Budget increased by a net of $15.2 million. The land acquisition 
budget was increased by $12 2 million (two of three lawsuits have been resolved). The Construction contract 
actually came in lower than estimated. That allowed restoration of the construction contingency to 10% and 
partial restoration of other parts of the Project budget. 

99 Grove Street, #204, San Francisco, CA 94102 - Telephone (415) 554-6178 Fax (415) 978-5913 



30 



08./16/01 THO 11:37 FAX 415 978 5913 MOSCONE EXP PROJN PROJ Attachment II ®003 

Page 2 of 2 

Funding sources have been increased as the scope and budget for the Project has changed. The primary 
sources, initiaJly, were net bond proceeds and the Hotel Tax. By Fall 1999, Convention Facilities Fund Balance 
and Rents/Misc/Other hsd become more prominent. Convention Facilities Fund Balance are revenues made 
available to the Project from previously allocated CFM project reserves or operating surpluses from prior fiscal 
years. "Rents" come from proceeds collected from properties taken by eminent domain for the Project. The 
buildings were occupied for approximately six months prior to their demolition under City "ownership." "Other" 
includes a $14.9 million release of the Capital Reserve Fund previously refunded Moscone Revenue Bonds in 
1994. The release was made possible by substitution of a surety bond for the capital reserve. Presently, the 
increased alternate sources have allowed the need for Hotel Tax to be reduced from a high of $179.6 million in 
Fall 1999 to $149.8 million currently. 

The Revenue Bond funding available has always been shown in terms of net proceeds, after capitalized interest, 
capital reserve and bond issuance costs are taken off the top of the $157.5 million authorization level. Original 
Project planning assumed Bond issuance in 1 997 with $42.5 million of financing costs, yielding $115 million in net 
proceeds. Working with the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the project team delayed issuance until November 
2000 This reduced the financing cost by $18 million and made that amount available for "hard costs" of the 
Project. 

As of July 2001 . the City has appropriated approximately $318 million in total fund sources for MCEP (Hotel Tax 
$109.8 M, Revenue Bonds $133 M (net), CFM Fund Balance $58.7 M, and Other $16.8 M). We currently project 
that an additional $40 million in Hotel Tax Funds will be needed In FY 02/03 to complete the Project. 

Currently, project construction is on time and within budget. The General Contractor was given Notice-To- 
Proceed in August 2000. We expect to open for operations in the Spring of 2003. 



AF_ Fees/AE Bd Resolution 01 Analyst memo 2 



81 



38/15/01 WED 13:36 FAI 415 978 5913 



moscone EXP projn proj Attachment III ®002 




Page 1 of 4 
City and County of San Francisco Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayer 

Edwin M. Lee, DP* Director 

Ray Fong, Project Manager 

Memorandum revised August 15, 2001 

To: Jack Moerschbaec'ner 

From: Ray Fong 

Subj: Architect Work Scope Budget 

The following items listed below are anticipated additional architectural contract modification 
work scopes that may be required to complete construction of the project 



Budgets | Work Scope 


Design 
Budget 


Construction 

Budget 




65,000 


4,200,000 


Integration of solar panel power supply. 


30,000 


360,000 


Tenant improvement to Howard Street spaces for construction offices. 


50,000 


100,000 


Engineering and studies and for the adjoining 888 Howard Street Hotel. 


40,000 





Development of special occupancies and related Fire Department 
permits. 


50,000 


750,000 


Engineering and integration of the City's Reclaimed Water plan. 


75,000 


300,000 


Space planning for accommodation to uses not previously anticipated. 


60,000 


750,000 


Studies and solutions for the Fifth and Mission Parking Garage 
expansion. 


50,000 


625,000 


Upgrading of audio and visual equipment 


55,000 


250,000 


Specialized engineering for vibratory membrane dynamic floor loading 
responses. 


75,000 





Specialty curtain wall consultant field service. 


70,000 





Consultant travel to manufacturing sites outside the Bay Area to insure 
proper manufacture, fabrication, quality control or testing of building 
components. 


45,000 


560,000 


Select equipment for new vendors that will be using the new building. 


70,000 


875,000 


Review and approve substitutions for products or materials no longer 
available or which incorporate upgrades in technology, improves 
materials, products or systems. 


45,000 


565,000 


Provide additional services to comply with special building occupancy 
mandated by the Building Department or other approval agency. 


60,000 


750,000 


Provide services to comply with new energy or conservation measures 
that may be enacted. 


160,000 I | Exercise option by City to participate in cost of project insurance. 


1,000,000 | 10,085,000 | Total 



We request that you seek authority frcm the BOS to modify the contract by $1 million. 

All construction cost shown above, except the solar panel power system, will be funded by the 
MCEP project construction contingency and will not require additional funding to execute. 
Construction cost for the solar power system will be funded by the Public Utilities Commission 
(PUC) dependent upon issuance of bonds for solar energy facilities. 

Howard and fifth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 - Telephone (415) 97S-5901 Fax (415) 267-6480 

82 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment III 
Page 2 of 4 
Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Edwin Lee, DPW Director 

Ray Fong, Project Manager 



August 14, 2002 

To: Leonard Tom 

Financial Manager 

From: Ray Fong 

Project Manager 

Re: Moscone Center Expansion Project 
Architect Work Scope Details 

Please find described below details of the Architect's work scope for Board Resolution August 2001. 

1 . Integration of solar panel power supply: A preliminary proposal to add solar panels to the roof of 
MCEP has been studied by the Powerlight Corporation of Berkeley, CA. Electrical power generated 
by the solar panels could be used within the building or returned to PG&E for a credit. If the 
decision were made to add solar panels to MCEP in order to reduce energy consumption it would 
be necessary for the project Architects to provide design services for conduit routing from the roof 
to an equipment monitoring and control room in the basement. The re-design of the area where 
the control room is located, the control room design and the conduit routing would be an 
additional cost. 

2. Tenant Improvement to Howard Street spaces for construction offices: The construction 
management and inspection staff for the MCEP is currently located in temporary construction 
trailers located along Howard Street. During the year 2002, these trailers will have to be removed 
to complete construction on MCEP including repaving Howard Street between Fourth and Fifth 
Street. Since the project will not be finished when this paving occurs it will be necessary to 
relocate the 1 5 person staff to MCEP, leased office space or City owned office space. In any event 
it will be additional services to design such spaces for management staff to use until project 
completion in the spring of 2003. 

3. Engineering studies for the adjoining 888 Howard Street Hotel: A new hotel is in the planning 
stages for adjacent property to the MCEP site. Additional services will be necessary to find 
solutions for joint property line issues arising from the new hotel. Such services would study hotel 
foundations deeper than the MCEP foundations, waterproofing, underpinning, foundation wall 
design, dewatering and shoring as they impact the MCEP construction. 

4. Special occupancy and related Fire Department permits: These permits for certain types of usage 
are pre-approved by the Fire Department, and are planned and created by the Architect with the 
assistance of the convention facility's staff. Work involves establishing multiple layouts of planned 
activities for differing anticipated configurations of occupants using the facility. For instance, the 
existing Moscone Center has 45 of these pre-approved occupancy plans on file with the Fire 
Department. This new facility is estimated to require 18 pre-approved plans to be on file. If the 
client required new configurations of use, additional services would be necessary from the 
Architect. 



83 



Construction Project Trailers, 5* and Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415)978-5901 (415) 267-6480 fax 



Attachment III 

' , __ n , Paee 3 of k 

August 14, 2001 = 

Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Architect Work Scope Details 

Page 2 

5. Engineering and integration of the City's Reclaimed Water plan: At some future date in may be 
required to add additional plumbing to the building to implement the City's reclaimed water plan. 
This would be additional design work for the Architects, since the project is in construction and the 
reclaimed water plan was not required of this project during the design phase. 

6. Space planning for accommodation to uses not previously anticipated: Any space planning and 
interior design that might be requested by SF Convention Facilities that is not already incorporated 
in the plans will be additional services for the Architects. A new business center is desired to 
provide amenities for convention users such as: a copy center, packaging and mail center, and 
electronic messaging services. 

7. Studies and solutions for the Fifth and Mission parking garage expansion: The Department of 
Parking and Traffic is currently studying the possible expansion of the Fifth and Mission garage 
either by adding vertically or horizontally onto Minna Street. If the Minna Street expansion were 
pursued, additional work would be required by the MCEP Architects to study and provide design 
services to modify the MCEP as necessary to accommodate the new garage expansion. This could 
include additional exiting studies, fire ratings of walls, deep excavations, foundation wall design, 
dewatering, and shoring design. 

8. Upgrading audio and visual equipment: audio and visual equipment is something that is constantly 
being improved. Some re-design and upgrades of equipment, wiring, and systems has already 
occurred and it is likely more improvements will occur prior to construction completion in the 
spring of 2003. 

9. Specialized engineering for vibratory membrane dynamic floor loading responses: The dynamic 
analysis for a flexible floor is not within the scope of the Architect's normal services. Dynamic 
floor responses are a result of special loading criteria, which can come from activities such as: 
march mg^bands, group aerobic exercises, rock concerts, and tea dancing. All of these activities 
generate a rhythmic pattern, which can harmonically intensify in amplitude to generate wave 
patterns in the floor membrane. An expert is needed to study and report on the flexibility of our 
floors in reaction to dynamic wave responses, and give criteria to avoid these loadings or 
recommend engineering criteria to change the floor response spectrum. 

1 0. Specialty curtain wall consultant field service. A large portion of the Fourth and Fifth Street facades 
are made of an aluminum and glass building enclosure system commonly known as a curtain wall 
because it supports only its own weight and is not part of the building structural system. Each 
building that uses such a system is using standard manufactured components that are put together 
in a unique way to provide the exterior weather enclosure for the building. Full size mock-ups are 
constructed to test water infiltration, temperature expansion and contraction, wind resistance, etc. 
This curtain wall system will be one of the most important component systems in the building. To 
ensure proper installation that will meet design requirements, code requirements, and 
improvements resulting from the mock up testing it may be necessary to have the actual 
construction reviewed as it progresses by an expert curtain wall consultant that has been involved 
with all phases of the project. Such expert on site inspection would be additional service by the 
MCEP Architects. 

1 1 . Consultant travel to manufacturing sites outside the Bay Area: Sometimes it is necessary for local 
design consultants to travel outside the Bay area to insure proper manufacture, fabrication, quality 
control or testing of building components. There are thousands of pieces of equipment, motors, 
fans, electrical components, lighting, audio visual systems, fire protection, fire alarm systems, etc. 
which in the best interest of finishing the project on time without last minute problems require 
inspection or observation at the manufacturing plant rather than shipping components to the job 

84 



August 14, 2001 

Moscone Center Expansion Project 
Architect Work Scope Details 
Page 3 



Attachment 111 
Page 4 of 4 



site for testing. These inspection or commissioning trips would be additional services for the MCEP 
design consultants. Such travel may be required to Stockton, CA; Fresno, CA; Phoenix, AZ; 
Fullerton, CA; Wausau, MN; Scofield, MN; and Mountain Top, PA. 

12. Select equipment for new vendors: SF Convention Facilities is in the process of hiring vendors to 
operate or maintain planned activities for MCEP. Those vendors who were not known during the 
design phase may and usually do request or require equipment or construction changes to 
accommodate their operations. Such changes would be additional services for the MCEP design 
team. 

13. Review and approve substitutions for the project: Under the Architects contract they perform one 
review of submittals for materials and products that the Architects designed and the client 
approved. Additional services would be required for (1) client requested changes to materials and 
products, (2) contractor requested changes when the specified item is still available, and (3) 
upgrade in technology, improvement in materials, products or systems if the specified system is still 
available and was previously approved by the City. 

14. Provide additional services to comply with special Building Department or other approval agency: 
Although every effort is made during the planning, design and construction phases to meet or 
exceed the requirements of all the approval agencies, sometimes new requirements or 
interpretations based on the actual construction become apparent to the approving agencies. Life 
safety and disabled access issues are two areas that require frequent last minute adjustment in order 
to obtain building occupancy permits or final approvals. The addition of these late changes, that 
could not have been anticipated during the design phase and after numerous previous approvals by 
the same authorities, would be additional services for the MCEP design consultants. Another 
example is the recent change by the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board of its latest standards on 
emissions' for emergency generators that mandated the project change the specified generators and 
re-select another generator that met the new regulations. 

15. Provide services to comply with new energy or conservation measures that may be enacted: Any 
City, State or Federal energy or conservation measures that are not already part of the MCEP design 
will require re-design work to accommodate those new measures. Construction is beyond 25% 
complete and any such revision might require demolition of completed construction and revision 
of plans and specifications to incorporate the new systems. Energy and conservation measures 
usually involve the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and electrical systems. Even a minor 
change may require extensive additional design work. 

1 6. Exercise option by City to participate in cost of project insurance: The City instituted and has the 
option of raising the insurance coverage from the non-project specific coverage of $6 million to the 
project specific coverage of $10 million. This was recommended by the City Attorney to provide 
the City with the best protection at minimal cost. 



85 



City and County of San Francisco 



Louise H.Renne 
City Attorney 



Attachment IV 



Office of the City Attorney 




George K. Wong 
Deputy City Attorney 



TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

RE: 



Direct Dial: (415)554-3942 

E-Mail george_wong@ci.sf.ca.us 



MEMORANDUM 
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 



DEBRA NEWMAN 






Budget Analyst's Office j 

GEORGE K.WONG y^ 
Deputy City Attorney 

August 16,2001 

Modification of Contract with Gensler/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi,. JV 



In October, 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved a modified contract with 
Gensler/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi, JV for architectural services in the amount of 
514,026,326. Since that date, the Department of Public Works has modified the contract so that 
it now amounts to $14,089,073, an amount slightly in excess of the board-approved amount. The 
Department of Public Works is seeking a board resolution increasing the original approved 
amount of $14,026,326 by $1 million. 

Charter Section 9.118, amongst other things, requires board approval of non-construction 
contracts of $10 million or more, and of modifications of such contracts exceeding $500,000. 
The department's execution of modifications do not require board approval, provided the total 
modified amount does not exceed $14,526,326 ($14,026,326 + $500,000). Therefore, 
modifications resulting in the present modified contract amount of $14,089,073 did not require 
board approval. However, at this time the department wishes to modify the contract by an 
additional amount of $1 million. This will require board approval by resolution. 



Fox Plaza -1390 Market Street, Suite 418 • San Francisco, California 94 102-5408 
Reception: (415)5544283 • Facsimile: (415)255-0733 



86 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Items 11, 12 and 13 - Files 01-1499. 01-1500 and 01-1501 

The proposed ordinances would establish the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Property 
Tax rates for the City and County of San Francisco including the Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (File 01- 
1499), for the San Francisco Unified School District (File 01-1500) and for the San 
Francisco Community College District (File 01-1501). The Property Tax rate 
proposed for the City and County of San Francisco is $1.00 per $100 of assessed 
valuation which is the maximum allowable rate. The total Property Tax rate of 
$1,124 per $100 of assessed value for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for all of the 
jurisdictions named above, as calculated by the Controller, includes bond interest 
and redemption charges. The proposed Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Property Tax rate of 
$1,124 is a decrease of $0,012 from the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Tax rate of $1,136. 

The Fiscal Year 2000-2001 approved Property Tax rates and the Fiscal Year 
2001-2002 proposed Property Tax rates are as follows: 





Approved 


Proposed 






Fiscal Year 


Fiscal Year 






2000-2001 


2001-2002 


Increase 




Rates 


Rates 


(Decrease) 


Citv and Countv of San Francisco 1 : 








General Fund 


0.57739620 


0.57239620 


(0.0050000) 


Children's Fund 


0.02500000 


0.03000000 


0.0050000 


Open Space Acquisition Fund 


0.02500000 


0.02500000 


- 


County Superint. of Schools 


0.00097335 


0.00097335 


- 


Library Preservation Fund 


0.02500000 


0.02500000 


- 


S.F. Unified School District 


0.28485725 


0.28485725 


- 


S.F. Community College District 


0.05336253 


0.05336253 


- 


Bay Area Air Quality Management 


0.00208539 


0.00208539 


- 


District 








Bay Area Rapid Transit District 


0.00632528 


0.00632528 


; 


Subtotal, General Fund Tax Rate 


$1.00 


S1.00 


S0.00 



1 Changes to the City's FY 2001-2002 General Fund and Children's Fund Property Tax allocations 
result from voter approval of Proposition D in November of 2000. Proposition D extended the 
Children's Fund allocation expiration date from June 30, 2002 until June 30, 2016. Proposition D 
also increased the allocation from SO. 025 to SO. 030, an increase of $0,005. There was an equal 
reduction to the General Fund Property Tax allocation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Property Tax Rates (Continued) 



Rates for Bonded Indebtedness 

City and County of San Francisco 
S. F. Unified School District 
Subtotal, Bonded Indebtedness 



Approved 


Proposed 




Fiscal Year 


Fiscal Year 




2000-2001 


2001-2002 


Increase 


Rates 


Rates 


(Decrease) 



$0.1348136 $0.12359506 ($0.01121854) 
0.0011864 0.00040494 ( .00078146) 
$0,136 $0,124 ($0,012) 



Total Combined Tax Rate 



$1,136 



$1.1240 



($0,012) 



Compared with the current Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Property Tax rate of 
$1,136, the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 proposed $1,124 Property Tax rate will have the 
following effect on a tax bill for a single family residence assessed at $400,000 in FY 
2000-2001: 

Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 

Assessed Value $400,000 

Less Homeowners Exemption 7,000 

Total $393,000 divided by $100 x $1,136 = $4,464.48 

Fiscal Year 
2001-2002 

Assessed Value (2000-2001) $400,000 
Add 2% Cost of Living Increase 8.000 

Subtotal $408,000 

Less Homeowners Exemption 7,000 

Total $401,000 divided by $100 x $1.124 = $4.507.24 



Net increase in Property Tax Bill for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 



$42.76 



As shown above, homeowners of a single family residence, assessed at $400,000, 
would experience a cost of living increase of 2 percent, as allowed under Proposition 
13 for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In the example reflected above, the cost of living 
increase, combined with the decreased rate for bonded indebtedness, results in a 
Property Tax increase of $42.76 for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 as compared to Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
88 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Section 37.3 (6) of the Administrative Code (the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance) allows landlords to pass through to 
tenants that portion of Property Taxes attributable to the City's General Obligation 
bonds approved by voters between November 1, 1996 and November 30, 1998. For 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the passthrough rate, as determined by the Controller, is 
$0,025 per $100 of assessed value, or 2.5 cents per $100 of assessed value. This 
passthrough rate of $0,025 is $0,002 more than the $0,023 passthrough rate in FY 
2000-2001. Landlords must comply with the Rent Board's procedures to be eligible 
for passthrough provisions. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
89 



Memo to Finance Committee 

August 22, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 14 - File 01 - 1502 

The proposed ordinance would amend the previously approved Fiscal 
Year 2001-2002 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO) as a prerequisite to 
the levy of the Property Tax rate. The proposed ordinance would amend the 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 AAO to increase previously appropriated funds in the 
amount of $164,853 (from $944,926 to $1,109,779) to the Art Commission for 
the Municipal Symphony Orchestra (one-eighth of one cent per $100 of 
assessed valuation) as required by Charter Section 16.106(1). 

Comment 

The Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget presently includes $944,926 for the 
Art Commission expenditures for the Municipal Symphony Orchestra. The 
proposed ordinance would increase this appropriation by $164,853 to 
$1,109,779 for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 



y^^x 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



BO ARD OF SUPERVISORS 

10 



BUDGET ANALYST 




City Hall 

Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 

San Francisco 94102-4689 

Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 

NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETINGS 

.FINANCE COMMITTEE 
£AN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meetings of the Finance Committee scheduled for 
the Wednesdays of August 29, September 5, September 1 2, and September 1 9, 2001 , 
at 10:00 a.m., at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, 
California, have been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 






) 



° OC0 ^ S06Pr 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 2/1/01 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 

S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL, ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-4689 



IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE! 



41 Library 

100 Larkjn Street Govt Information Center 




City and County of San Francisco Cit > HM 

J J ir i Dr Cailton B. Goodlett Place 

Meeting Agenda San Francisc0 ' CA 94102-4689 

^Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 

Clerk: Gail Johnson 

Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 



).A5 
t/oi 



) 



Note: Each item on the Consent or Regular agenda may include the following documents: 

1) Legislation 

2) Budget Analyst report 

3) Legislative Analyst report 

4) Department or Agency cover letter and/or report 

5) Public correspondence 

These items will be available for review at City Hall, Room 244, Reception Desk. 



Each member of the public will be allotted the same maximum number of minutes to speak as set by 
the Chair at the beginning of each item, excluding City representatives, except that public speakers 
using translation assistance will be allowed to testify for twice the amount of the public testimony- 
time limit. If simultaneous translation services are used, speakers will be governed by the public 
testimony time limit applied to speakers not requesting translation assistance. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 
AGENDA CHANGES SEP 2 1 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC LIBRARY 



010982 [Reserved Funds, SF LAFCO] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, SF LAFCO (File No. 001995. Ordinance 308-00), in 
the amount of $365,000 to provide funds for the consultant to perform a sphere of influence study in 
the amount of $90,000; City Attorney legal services in the amount of 5153,699.46; $100,000 for 
contracting for outside legal counsel; and funds for stipends for Commissioners and the use of interns 
from the University of San Francisco. (Clerk of the Board) 

5/22/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

9/17/01. ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

9/17/01. SUBSTITUTED. The Clerk of the Board submitted an amendment to the previous request, reducing the amount to 

be released from S604.250 to S365.000. 



City and County of San Francisco 1 Printed at 10:58 AM on 9/20/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, September 26, 2001 



011436 [Official Advertising] 

Resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division of the Office of Contract Administration to negotiate 
and enter into a sole source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle to be the official newspaper of 
the City and County of San Francisco for the category of consecutive day official advertising for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. (Purchaser) 

8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

8/22/01. CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Judith Blackwell. Director, Office of 

Contract Administration; Michael Ward. Assistant Director of Purchasing, Purchasing Division, Office of Contract 

Administration 

Continued to September 26, 2001. 



011444 [Outreach Advertising] 

Resolution designating El Mensajero, El Latino and El Reportero to be outreach newspapers of the 
City and County of San Francisco for the Hispanic/Latino community; designating the China Press, 
the Chinese Times and Asian Week to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco 
for the Chinese community; designating the San Francisco Bay View to be outreach newspaper of the 
City and County of San Francisco for the African American community; designating San Francisco 
Spectrum, the Bay Area Reporter and San Francisco Bay Times to be outreach newspapers of the City 
and County of San Francisco for the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community; designating MO 
Magazine to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco for the Southeast Asian 
community; designating Russian Life to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of San 
Francisco for the Russian community, designating Hokubei Mainichi to be outreach newspaper of the 
City and County of San Francisco for the Japanese community, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
2002. (Purchaser) 

8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

8/22/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Judith Blackwell, Director, Office of 
Contract Administration; Luis Espinosa, Senior Purchaser, Purchasing Division, Office of Contract Administration; Gloria 
Young, Clerk of the Board; Ref Sanchez, California Newspaper Service Bureau; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; 
Rolando Pasquali, Attorney, representing El Latino; Jose Del Castillo, publisher of El Mensajero; Clementina Garcia, El 
Latino; Carmen Ruiz, owner of El Latino; Michael Ward, Assistant Director of Purchasing. Purchasing Division, Office of 
Contract Administration. 
Continued to September 26, 2001. 



01 1579 [Department of Environment Lease] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Resolution authorizing the expansion of leased space at 1 1 Grove Street for the Department of the 
Environment and accepting donations of materials and services. 

(District 6.) 

8/27/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



01 1564 [Reserved Funds, Department of the Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of the Environment (File 01 1431, 
Resolution No. 647-01), in the amount of $46,971 to fund the expansion of leased space at 1 1 Grove 
Street, to accommodate employees hired under two grant programs. (Environment) 

8/28/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 10:58 AM on 9/20/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, September 26, 2001 



- 



011394 [Airport Information Booth Contract, Fiscal Year 2001-2002] 

Resolution approving the Controller's Certification that Airport Information Booth Services at San 
Francisco International Airport can practically be performed by private contractor at a lower cost than 
if work were performed by City employees at currently budgeted levels. (Airport Commission) 

8/22/01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



011525 [Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2001-02] 

Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2001-02 pursuant to California 
Constitution Article XIII B. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/15/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

8/21/01, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted by Controller 8/21/01 bearing same title. 

8/21/01, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



011445 [Approval of Amendment(s) to Design Agreement for the Moscone Center Expansion Project] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Administrative Services to execute amendment(s) to design 
agreement, increasing the amendment sum from $14,026,326.38 to $15,026,326.38. (Administrative 
Services Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

8/22/01. CONTINUED. Speakers: None. Continued to September 26, 2001. 



ADJOURNMENT 



IMPORTANT INFORMATION 

NOTE: Persons unable to attend the meeting may submit to the City, by the time the proceeding 
begins, written comments regarding the agenda items above. These comments will be made a part of 
the official public record and shall be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Any- 
written comments should be sent to Committee Clerk, Finance Committee, San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102 by 5:00 
p.m. on the day prior to the hearing. Comments which cannot be delivered to the committee clerk by 
that time may be taken directly to the hearing at the location above. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 10:58 A\f on 9/20/01 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 26, 2001 



LEGISLATION UNDER THE 30-DAY RULE 



(Not to be considered at this meeting) 

Rule 5.42 provides that when an ordinance or resolution is introduced which would CREATE OR 
REVISE MAJOR CITY POLICY, the committee to which the legislation is assigned shall not consider 
the legislation until at least thirty days after the date of introduction. The provisions of this rule shall 
not apply to the routine operations of the departments of the City or when a legal time limit controls 
the hearing timing. In general, the rule shall not apply to hearings to consider subject matter when 
no legislation has been presented, nor shall the rule apply to resolutions which simply URGE action 
to be taken. 



There are no items now pending under the 30-day Rule. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 10:58 AM on 9/20/01 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 26, 2001 

Meeting Procedures 

The Board of Supervisors is the Legislative Body of the City and County of San Francisco. The Board has 

several standing Committees where ordinances and resolutions are the subject of hearings at which members of 

the public are urged to testify. The full Board does not hold a second public hearing on measures which have 

been heard in committee. 

Board procedures do not permit: 1) persons in the audience at a Committee meeting to vocally express support 

or opposition to statements by Supervisors or by other persons testifying; 2) ringing and use of cell phones, 

pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices; 3) signs to be brought into the meeting or displayed in 

the room; 4) standing in the meeting room. 

Citizens are encouraged to testify at Committee meetings and to write letters to the Clerk of a Committee or to 

its members, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Agenda are available on the internet at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs.bos.htm. 

THE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL, ROOM 244, RECEPTION DESK. 

Board meetings are televised on channel 26. For video tape copies and scheduling call (415) 557-4293. 

Requests for language translation at a meeting must be received no later than noon the Friday before the meeting. 

AVISO EN ESPANOL: La solicitud para un traductor en una reunion debe recibirse antes de mediodia de el 

viemes anterior a la reunion. Llame a Erasmo Vazquez (415) 554-4909. 

S#'£ (415) 554-7701 



Disability Access 

Both the Committee Room (Room 263) and the Legislative Chamber are wheelchair accessible. The closest 

accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this 

location are: #47 Van Ness, and the #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro 

stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, 

call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the 

War Memorial Complex. 

The following services are available when requested by 4:00 p.m. of the Friday before the Board meeting: 

For American Sign Language interpreters, use of a reader during a meeting, or sound enhancement system, 
contact Violeta Mosuela at (415) 554-7704. 

For a large print copy of agenda or minutes in alternative formats, contact Annette Lonich at (415) 554-7706. 
The Clerk of the Board's Office TTY number for speech-hearing impaired is (415) 554-5227. 
In order to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or 
related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various 
chemical based products. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at 10:58 AM on 9/20/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, September 26, 2001 



Know Your Rights Under the Sunshine Ordinance 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, 
councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine 
Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the 
people's review. For information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall; by mail to Sunshine 
Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 409, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 
554-7854 or by email at Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us 

Citizens may obtain a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance by contacting Ms. Hall or by printing Chapter 67 of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine.htm 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 10:58 AM on 9/20/01 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



.25 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
-• 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 

September 20, 2001 

TO: -Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-0982 

Department: Board of Supervisors 

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) 

Request for release of $365,000 for LAFCo to 
contract for a sphere of influence study, pay for 
City Attorney services and outside legal counsel, 
telecast LAFCo meetings and increase LAFCo 
member stipends. 

$365,000 

General Fund 

In December of 2000, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a motion (File 00-1248) calling for the 
formation of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) in 
the City and County of San Francisco and the City 
of Brisbane to be placed on the November 6, 2001 
ballot. 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

SEP 2 5 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to Mr. Dorji Roberts of the City- 
Attorney's Office, State law, initially passed in 
1963 and subsequently amended in 1985 and 2000, 
created a LAFCo for every County in the State of 
California to evaluate proposals for changes of local 
government organization, such as the creation of 
new districts. Mr. Roberts advises that LAFCo 
Commissioners were never previously appointed in 
San Francisco because San Francisco is a 
consolidated City and County and had never before 
needed to approve a proposal for a change of 
organization in San Francisco. However, on August 
21, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted a 
motion appointing three of its members to the San 
Francisco LAFCo. These three members then 
appointed two private citizens to the LAFCo on 
October 31, 2000, as required by State law. 1 

On December 5, 2000, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated $754,250 from the General Fund 
Reserve for LAFCo expenses, and placed $604,250 
of these funds on reserve (File 00-1995), pending a 
revised budget proposal. Therefore, $150,000 
($754,250 appropriated less $604,250 on reserve) 
was available for LAFCo expenditures in FY 2000- 
2001. The proposed request is for the release of 
$365,000 of the $604,250 previously placed on 



Budget: The budget for the requested $365,000 is as follows: 

Sphere of Influence Study $90,000 

City Attorney Expenses 

(July 1, 2000 - June 30, 2001) 153,700 

City Attorney Expenses 

(July 1, 2001-September 30, 2001) 11,106 
Outside Legal Counsel 

(September 1, 2001-June 30, 2002) 100,000 

$354,806 



1 Mr. Roberts advises that State law governing LAFCos changed effective January 1, 2001, 
such that San Francisco's LAFCo is now required to have four members of the Board of 
Supervisors and one public member, with two alternates from the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

As shown above, detailed requests were provided 
for $354,806 of funds to be released from reserve at 
this time, or $10,194 less than the original request 
of $365,000. Therefore, the subject request should 
be reduced by $10,194. As identified above, most of 
the requested funds are to pay for expenses that 
have already been incurred. Therefore, the 
requested release of funds should be amended to 
provide for retroactivity. 

Comments: 1. The $150,000 previously approved for LAFCo 

was budgeted for the following expenditures: 

Temporary Salaries $69,650 



Fringe Benefits 


5,850 


Membership Fees 


2,000 


Advertising 


3,500 


Other Current Expenses 


32,750 


Materials and Supplies 


6,250 


Services of the City Attorney 


25,000 


Services of Other Departments 


5.000 



Total $150,000 

As shown in Attachment I, provided by Ms. Gloria 
Young, the Executive Officer of LAFCo, as of 
September 3, 2001, LAFCo has expended and/or 
encumbered a total of $24,649 of the original 
$150,000 appropriated to LAFCo in December of 
2000. Attachment I indicates that the $24,649 was 
expended for Temporary Salaries, related Fringe 
Benefits, Membership Dues, Advertising, and 
Miscellaneous expenses. Thus, LAFCo currently 
has a balance of $125,351 ($150,000 less $24,649) 
of funds available. 

As also shown in Attachment I, LAFCo intends to 
spend the remaining $125,351 for (1) personnel 
expenses for secretarial support and premium pay 
for LAFCo's Executive Officer ($64,462), (2) City 
Attorney services ($25,000), (3) Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services 
(DTIS) for Citywatch ($5,000), (4) official 
advertising ($5,000) and (5) materials and supplies, 
and other miscellaneous expenses ($25,889). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



In this request for release of reserved funds, Ms. 
Young indicated that additional funds may be 
needed to pay for stipends for LAFCo's 
Commissioners and the use of interns from the 
University of San Francisco. However, Ms. Young 
now advises that the use of any interns would not 
require additional costs for LAFCo. In addition, the 
Budget Analyst notes that the Department has 
$25,889 available in the category "materials and 
supplies and other miscellaneous expenses" for 
such purposes from the $150,000 of funds 
previously appropriated and released by the Board 
of Supervisors for LAFCo. 

2. Of this subject request for $365,000, $90,000 
would be used by LAFCo to contract with E. J. 
Simpson to conduct a Sphere of Influence study. 
This study would analyze providing public power to 
the City and County of San Francisco and other 
potential areas by (1) assessing San Francisco' 
energy demand and resources, (2) identifying and 
evaluating public power service options and 
structures and (3) reviewing and analyzing other 
considerations, as detailed in Attachment II, the 
Description of Services to be provided by E. J. 
Simpson. 

According to Ms. Young, Requests for Proposals 
(RFP) to conduct the Sphere of Influence Study 
were issued to 19 firms between May 28 and June 
20, 2001 that were recommended by or identified at 
the April of 2001 American Public Power 
Association meeting, or recommended by California 
LAFCo members, San Francisco LAFCo members 
or who contacted Ms. Young's office and/or accessed 
the information from LAFCo's website. In response, 
by the deadline date of June 25, 2001, proposals 
were received from the following two firms: (1) 
ProjectDesign Consultants and (2) E. J. Simpson. 
Ms. Young advises that E.J. Simpson, a utility 
consultant based in Redding, California, was 
selected by LAFCo based on an evaluation of the 
two proposals and oral interviews. The proposed 
price of E.J. Simpson was $90,000 and the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

price of ProjectDesign Consultants was $104,300 
plus expenses and a ten percent fee. 

Ms. Young reports that LAFCo has now entered 
into an agreement with E.J. Simpson to conduct 
the Sphere of Influence Study, such that the 
request for release of the $90,000 funds would be 
required retroactively. The term of this agreement 
is from August 27, 2001 to October 10, 2001, a 
period of approximately six weeks, at an hourly 
rate of $150 per hour, based on an estimated 587 
hours. In addition, actual costs for the contractor's 
meals, accommodations, long distance and cellular 
phone charges, postage, vehicle rental, etc. would 
be subject to approval of LAFCo, such that the total 
contract would not exceed $90,000 2 . 

3. The proposed request for $153,700 for the costs 
of services of the City Attorney's Office is for the 
period retroactive from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 
2001 and includes (a) $100,900 of services provided 
by the City Attorney's Office based on 
approximately 697 hours at an average hourly rate 
of $144.76 and (b) $52,800 of legal services 
provided primarily by Shute, Mihaly and 
Weinberger, based on approximately 216 hours at 
an estimated average hourly rate of $239.50, plus 
approximately $1,068 of direct attorney expenses. 
Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, outside legal 
counsel to the City Attorney's Office during FY 
2000-2001, was selected on a sole source basis. 
According to Mr. Jesse Smith of the City Attorney's 
Office, Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger was selected 
by the City Attorney because of their extensive 
LAFCo experience in California. 

As noted above, the previously released $150,000 
for LAFCo included $25,000 for City Attorney 
expenses. Ms. Young advises that, to date, LAFCo 



2 Ms. Young advises that a Special Subcommittee Meeting of LAFCo has been scheduled for 
September 21, 2001 to discuss this contract, such that the amount of funds needed may be 
less than the originally requested $90,000. In addition, Ms. Young reports that litigation has 
been filed regarding this contract. However, as of the writing of this report, the actual 
amount of funds needed to be released from reserve to pay for this contract has not yet been 
determined. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

has not allocated any funds to the City Attorney's 
Office. The subject requested release of $153,700 of 
City Attorney expenses incurred from July 1, 2000 
through June 30, 2001 includes the $25,000 of 
expenses previously released. Therefore, the subject 
request of $153,700 for City Attorney expenses 
should be reduced by $25,000, to $128,700. 

4. Ms. Martie Moore of the City Attorney's Office 
advises that from July 1, 2001 through August 31, 
2001, the City Attorney's Office billed $6,588 to 
LAFCo and retained Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger 
for LAFCo counsel at a cost of $1,304, for total 
expenditures of $7,892 thus far in FY 2001-2002. In 
addition, Ms. Young advises that up to an 
additional 20 hours of City Attorney time at a cost 
not to exceed $3,213 ($160.65 per hour) may be 
required during the month of September of 2001, 
for total City Attorney expenditures of $11,105 in 
FY 2001-2002. The estimated 20 additional City 
Attorney hours may be needed to advise the Sphere 
of Influence consultant and the two private law 
firms recently hired (see Comment No. 5). 

Mr. Roberts advises that previously LAFCo could 
appoint specific legal counsel or rely on the County 
Counsel (in San Francisco, the County Counsel is 
the City Attorney) for their legal advice. However, 
Mr. Roberts advises that the State Legislature 
amended LAFCo law, effective January of 2001, to 
require all LAFCos to specifically appoint legal 
counsel. On July 27, 2001, LAFCo requested that 
outside legal counsel be hired to provide LAFCo's 
legal services, such that the City Attorney's Office 
will no longer provide legal counsel for LAFCo. 

5. Ms. Young advises that the subject requested 
$100,000 for outside legal counsel is anticipated to 
cover the costs for contracting for LAFCo's legal 
services retroactive from approximately September 
1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Ms. Young advises 
that a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for legal 
counsel was issued to four firms on August 1, 2001 
and two firms responded, including: (1) Donald 
Maynor and Fred Yanney, Fulbright & Jaworski 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

and (2) Hyde, Miller, Owen & Trost. Ms. Young 
reports that she has retained both legal firms, since 
Maynor, Yanney, et. al. has extensive municipal 
utility experience and Hyde, Miller, et. al. has 
extensive LAFCo experience. Maynor, Yanney rates 
are $320 - $360 per hour, plus travel and ancillary 
costs. Hyde, Miller, rates are $140 - $200 per hour 
plus ancillary costs. 

Ms. Young advises that she cannot currently 
estimate the number of hours that would be 
required from each outside legal firm for the 
remainder of FY 2001-2002. According to Ms. 
Young, the requested $100,000 for legal counsel for 
the period from September 1, 2001 through June 
30, 2002 is a rough estimate for the remainder of 
the fiscal year based on (a) the City Attorney's total 
FY 2000-2001 costs of $153,700, including outside 
legal counsel, (b) only ten remaining months of FY 
2001-2002, (c) higher hourly rates for outside 
counsel, and the (d) need for outside counsel to 
attend LAFCo meetings, review the Sphere of 
Influence Study, consider MUD ballot issues and 
the potential processing of an application to create 
a MUD, in addition to general ongoing LAFCo legal 
responsibilities and assistance. 

6. As discussed above in the Budget Section, the 
proposed requested release of $365,000 should be 
reduced by $10,194 to $354,806, to reflect the 
actual detailed request for funds. As discussed in 
Comment No. 3 above, this request should be 
further reduced by $25,000 to $329,806 to reflect 
that $25,000 for City Attorney expenses were 
already included in the previously released 
$150,000 for LAFCo. Furthermore, as discussed in 
the footnote to Comment No. 2, Ms. Young advises 
that a Special Subcommittee Meeting of LAFCo has 
been scheduled for September 21, 2001, to discuss 
the E. J. Simpson contract. As a result, the actual 
amount of funds needed for this originally 
scheduled $90,000 Sphere of Influence contract is 
not currently known, such that this request for 
release of reserved funds should be further reduced 
at this time by $90,000 to $239,806. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. In summary, the Budget Analyst is 
recommending this request of $365,000 be reduced 
by $125,194 to $239,806. According to Ms. Young, 
an estimated $145, 806 3 , or 61 percent of the 
balance of $239,806, has already been incurred or 
obligated prior to obtaining approval from the 
Board of Supervisors for this release of such funds. 
Ms. Young advises that these funds were already 
incurred or obligated because the San Francisco 
LAFCo, as a State agency, directed the Executive 
Officer to proceed with obtaining and contracting 
for legal counsel services. The remaining $94,000 
has not yet been incurred or obligated according to 
Ms. Young. 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the requested release of reserved funds of 

$365,000 by $125,194 to $239,806, to reflect (1) the 
actual detailed request for $354,806, or $10,194 
less than the original request of $365,000, (2) a 
reduction of $25,000 of funds previously 
appropriated for City Attorney services, as noted in 
Comment No. 3, and (3) a reduction of $90,000 for 
the Sphere of Influence study to be conducted by E. 
J. Simpson, since the specific amount of funds 
needed is not currently known, as noted in the 
footnote for Comment No. 2. 

2. Release $94,000 of the $239,806 of funds not yet 
expended or incurred. Approval to release the 
remaining $145,806 of reserved funds already 
incurred or obligated, prior to obtaining Board of 
Supervisors approval, is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



3 The estimated $145,806 is based on approximately $139,806 of City Attorney expenses 
incurred from July 1, 2000 through September 26, 2001 plus approximately $6,000 for the 
outside legal counsel beginning September 1, 2001. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 





o 


co 


o 


o 




o 






O 


O 


O 




in 


in 


o 


o 




p 






o 


O 


O 


(0 


cri 


C\i 


cm 


d 




T-' 






d 


d 


d 


> 


o 


m 


en 


o~. 










ft 


o 


O 


< 


CO 


to 


*7 


o 




•'"-_ 






o 


o 


O 




o" 


co~ 




cm" 




t-^ 






CD 


LD 


in 


n 


cd 






1 




CM 








On! 




m 

























o 


o 


o 


co 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


r— 


-3- 


C3 


o 


in 


o 


O 


o 


CO 


(0 


LO 


LO 


m 




CM 




CM 



CO 


O 


n 


ro 


o 


O 


o 


o 


CM 


O 


o 


CM 


CD 


O 


ra 


CO 


■* 


C3 


o 


■fl" 










^r 


in 


m 


f 


CD 


CM 




cn 



II 

£^ 

2 x 

O "S 

Z a 

LLI t3 



CO 

CM 

o 
o 

CM 



Z >« 



o 


r- 




o 






o 


o 








in 


■f 


o 

p 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 
p 






d 


r--' 


d 




p 


d 


1^ 






^r 


oo 


CM 


i~- 




CM 


N. 




d 






CO 




0> 


o 




in 


CO 


r- 
























CM 






CO 


CM 




-3- 






N 










Q 
LU 
> 




o 
o 




o 

o 
d 
o 
o 
o" 
o 
in 


o 

p 








o 
o 




LU 
CO 
LU 

a: 




d 
o 
o_ 
co" 




d 
in 

CM 

cd" 

CM 








d 

o 
o_ 
in 




o 
o 

d 
m 
to 
cn 
co 


o 


o 


o 


o 
o 


O 

o 
d 
o 
o_ 
co" 


o 




O 


o 
o 


o 


o 
d 


o 
d 


o 
d 


d 
o 


o 
d 




o 
d 


d 
o 


o 

d 


m 


o 


o 


o 


o 




in 


o 


o 


CO 

in 


o 
co" 


o 
cm" 


o" 

o 
in 


in 
co" 




CM 

d 


o" 
o 


o 
in" 






















if) 










o 










1- 


r- 










> 










O 


Q 










CO 






















ro 
o 


CD 
cn 

c 

CD 






10 

cd 


"5. 

CD 


"5. 

CD 


CO 

cu 








'CD 






Q 


Q 


D 






cn 
CD 
31 
Q 


Q_ 


a 






O. 






ro 






CO 


X 






D 


a> 


CD 


i2 






LU 






CO 


sz 


SZ 


ro 






06 






co 








CO 

lT 
CO 

o 

a. 
E 


0) 

c 
cd 
m 




d 
cn 

CD 


76 
c 
o 
to 


C 

cd 

3 

o 


CO 

c 
J2 


o 

CD 
C 

n 


c 
ro 

in 

.5 


O 

75 
cn 

CD 


O 

o 

10 

CD 


CD 

co 
C 


CO 


E 

CD 


in 

o 


q3 


> 

"O 


O 


2 

To 


U 
CD 


t 

CD 


r- 


LL 


H 


2 


0. 


O 


< 


5 


2 


CO 


CO 


O 


O 


o 




o 


o 




CO 


o 


1- 


LO 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


co 


CO 


o 


o 


O 


in 


co 




* 


r-- 


cn 


in 


in 


a 






o 




CM 


CM 


CM 


co 


co 


co 


« 


co 


co 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 



CO 

< r- 

o a 

Q. "S. 

— m CD CD 

, Q. q3 QJ 

w §"£ £ 

co O O 

°S o o 

» ui in 

ro cu cu 

— o o 

£ £ & 

ro cd <d 

^ CO co 



co y 
co ^ 



Q. O 



co 

< h- 

o q 

Q. Q. 

CD CD 

u Q Q 

O "> i_ i_ 
LL £ CO CD 

•a % £ £ 

■s S 2 2 

o o 



o ro 

■a J 

CD cn 

■o cu 

c - — 

aj cn 

c = 



£S 1111 



CO 



2 £ £ 

CD CD CD 

DL CO CO 



3 E^ 

O CD U 
r- K 



CO "O 

ro ro 



Attachment II 
Pape 1 of 2 



Appendix A 
Services to be Provided by Contractor 

1. Description of Services 

LAFCO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ANALYSIS OF PROVIDING PUBLIC POWER TO THE CITY AND 
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS 

I. Assess San Francisco's energy demand and resources: There are three parts to delivery of electric service: 
generation, transmission, and distribution. Consider San Francisco's need for each and the means of 
providing each now and in the future. 

A. Current Demand and Resources and Compile Data Abstract for 
the following elements: 

1. Current San Francisco's energy demand by land use class (residential, commercial, municipal, 
industrial, etc.) and/or other relevant types of users, and utilizing methods of systems analysis. 

2. For generation, transmission, and distribution: identify resources and current ownership. 

B. Future San Francisco's Demand and Resources 

1 . Project San Francisco's future demand under a range of assumptions regarding City growth, 
price of energy, and conservation efforts, including residential conservation measures. 

2. Assess capability of generation, transmission and distribution systems to meet future demand. 
Estimate future upgrades and capital outlay for each component. 

II. Identify and evaluate public power service options and structures: For each service option and structure 
below, consider and compare (1) risks and benefits to San Francisco's consumers, (2) economic and 
financial impacts, including financing options, and opportunities for shared facilities. (3) time required to 
implement, (4) current and projected rates, (5) service quality and reliability, (6) maintaining 
environmental quality, (7) local control vs. state regulation, and (8) political, educational and social 
resources. Compare to status quo ((Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) service.)) 

A. Evaluate the following service options: 

1 . Community choice, aggregation: Aggregate electric load of San Francisco's consumers and 
provide electricity (purchase or generate) using PG&E's distribution system. 

2. Distribution service (i.e., take over PG&E bundled service role w/in San Francisco) 



a. Take over existing PG&E facilities 

b. Gradual entry into distribution business by taking over selected portions of system or 
building new facilities 

3. Transmission service 

a. Own and operate existing transmission 

b. Construct new transmission facilities ( ((3" 1 St. line, upgrade of line from San Francisco 
Airport (SFO) to City)) 

c. Complete Heich Hetchy transmission line from Newark to City 



P-500 (1-00) Page A- 1 

10 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



4. Generating resources 

a. Purchase existing generation 

b. Build generation 

c. Develop renewable energy resources 

5. Alternatives 

a. Energy- efficiency 

b. Energy alternatives, including, but not limited to solar power, wind power, and other 
known renewable and sustainable alternatives 

B. Evaluate the following structures for providing each of the service options listed above. Consider 

advantages and disadvantages of each structure. 

1. Municipal Utility District (San Francisco or San Francisco-Brisbane) 

2. Municipal power agency through City and County of San Francisco, under current or revised 
Charter 

3. Joint power entity formed with other local governments and/or local public private 
partnerships 

III. Olher considerations 

1. Analyze PG&E bankruptcy, failure to pay property tax, and impact on public power option 

2. Review franchise agreement and Wheeling Agreement 

3. Review status of Raker Act 

4. Review the Turlock/Modesto contracts 

5. La Follctte Act and FERC relevancy to acquisition of other dam 
sites 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 01-1436 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of August 
22, 2001. 



Department: 



Items: 



Description: 



Department of Administrative Services, Office of Contract 
Administration, Purchasing Division 

Resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division of the 
Office of Contract Administration to negotiate and enter 
into a sole source contract for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 with 
the San Francisco Chronicle to be the City's official 
newspaper to provide Type 1 advertising which requires 
the newspaper to be printed at least five days per week, 
on two or more consecutive days. 

Proposition J, which was approved by the San Francisco 
voters in November of 1994, in part, changed the criteria 
by which the City selects a newspaper to publish the 
City's official advertising. The Purchasing Division 
advises that, under Proposition J, Section 2.81 of the 
Administrative Code was amended with respect to the 
criteria to be considered in evaluating bids submitted by 
newspapers that wish to be designated as the City's 
official advertising newspapers. Bidders are required to 
submit typeset samples and other documentation for 
evaluation purposes. The criteria used for evaluation of 
bids under Section 2.81 includes (1) the cost of advertising 
in the newspaper (the newspaper which bids the lowest 
price per advertisement for advertising receives 
additional points), (2) the level of circulation of the 
newspaper (the newspaper with the largest circulation 
receives additional points), (3) the cost of the newspaper 
to the general public (any newspaper with a majority of 
circulation that is free of charge to the general public 
receives additional points), and (4) the ownership of the 
newspaper by a minority-owned, women-owned, or 
locally-owned business (newspapers which are owned by 
minority, women or locally-owned firms receive additional 
points). In addition, bidders must comply with all 
contracting requirements under the City's Charter and 
the Administrative Code, according to Mr. Mike Ward of 
the Purchasing Division. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The City's official advertising is divided into two 
categories: 

Type 1 - Advertisements for Two or More Consecutive 
Days: Official advertising which must be published on 
two or more consecutive days, and all official advertising 
which is required to be published in accordance with 
Section 2.103 of the Charter for special meetings of the 
Board of Supervisors and its standing or special 
committees. The official newspaper must publish at least 
5 days a week for Type 1 official advertising. 

Type 2 - Advertisements for Single or Non-consecutive 
Davs : Official advertising, which must be published one 
time (other than one-time advertising related to special 
meetings for the Board of Supervisors and its standing 
and/or special committees) or more than one time but not 
more than three times per week for a specified number of 
weeks. The official newspaper must publish at least 3 
days a week for Type 2 official advertising. 

The City's contract for Type 1 official advertising with the 
San Francisco Examiner expired on June 30, 2001. 
According to Mr. Ward, in response to its Invitation for 
Bids on March 31, 2001, the Purchasing Division did not 
receive any bids for Type 1 official advertising. Because 
no bids were received for Type 1 official advertising, the 
Purchasing Division has not made a recommendation to 
the Board of Supervisors regarding the award of the City's 
Type 1 official advertising for FY 2001-2002. However, 
according to Mr. Ward, the Purchasing Division contacted 
the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco 
Examiner in April of 2001, and both newspapers 
subsequently offered their services to provide the City's 
Type 1 official advertising in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Mr. 
Ward states that these offers to provide the City's Type 1 
official advertising in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 from the San 
Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner 
were made in response to an inquiry by the Purchasing 
Division and are not considered to be formal bids in 
response to an invitation to bid. 

This proposed resolution would authorize the Purchasing 
Division to negotiate and enter into a sole source contract 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

with the San Francisco Chronicle to provide Type 1 
official advertising. 

As shown in the attached August 1, 2001 memorandum 
from Ms. Judith Blackwell of the Purchasing Division to 
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment II), the 
Purchasing Division reports that the San Francisco 
Chronicle would charge $8.42 per line of typeset for Type 
1 consecutive day official advertising in FY 2001-2002, 
which is $5.96 more or 242.3 percent than the $2.46 
charged in FY 2000-2001 by the San Francisco Examiner 
for Type 1 official advertising and is $1.29 more or 18.1 
percent more than the $7.13 per line of typeset that the 
Examiner would charge for Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising in FY 2001-2002. For FY 2001-2002, the 
Purchasing Division reports that the total estimated 
annual cost for Type 1 official advertising, which would be 
provided by the San Francisco Chronicle if this legislation 
is approved, is $133,114 or $94,224 more than the cost for 
FY 2000-2001 of $38,890 charged by the San Francisco 
Examiner for Type 1 official advertising. 

Mr. Ward advises that the San Francisco Chronicle meets 
the Administrative Code requirements to be designated as 
the City's Type 1 official advertising newspaper. Such 
requirements include having a newspaper circulation of at 
least 50,000 copies per week, being published at least five 
days per week on two or more consecutive days, and being 
printed in San Francisco. However, according to Mr. 
Ward, the San Francisco Chronicle does not comply with 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code, pertaining to 
the City's Equal Benefits Ordinance. If the Board of 
Supervisors decides to authorize the Purchasing Division 
to negotiate and enter into a sole source contract with the 
San Francisco Chronicle to provide the City's Type 1 
official advertising, then the Purchasing Division would 
request a waiver of the Chapter 12B Equal Benefits 
requirements from the Human Rights Commission in 
order to enter into a sole source contract with the San 
Francisco Chronicle, according to Mr. Ward. 



Although, as noted above, the San Francisco Examiner 
has offered to provide the City's Type 1 official advertising 
in FY 2001-2002 at a rate of $7.13 per line, which is $1.29 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

less per line than the price of advertising in the Chronicle, 
the Examiner is not printed in the City, as required by 
Section 2.80-l(a) of the Administrative Code. In that 
regard as shown in a memorandum provided by the 
Purchasing Division (Attachment I), the City Attorney 
stated that "the Examiner cannot continue to be the 
official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F." In addition, 
the San Francisco Examiner, as is the case with the 
Chronicle, is not compliant with Chapter 12B of the 
Administrative Code. 

Although, according to Mr. Ward, the Purchasing Division 
has not recommended approval of this proposed 
resolution, Mr. Ward reports in a September 10, 2001 
memorandum (Attachment I) that "given the limitations 
of the Examiner, the City Attorney's opinion and 
applicable Chapter 12B regulations, there is only one 
viable option available to the City for Type 1 consecutive 
day official advertising - the San Francisco Chronicle" 
because, as stated in Attachment II, (a) this is an instance 
when no bids were received, (b) there are no other 
qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 
12B and (c) having a Type 1 official advertising 
newspaper is essential to the City and its residents. 

Comments: 1. As previously noted, the estimated costs for Type 1 

official advertising to be provided by the San Francisco 
Chronicle would be $133,114 in FY 2001-2002. Mr. Ward 
reports that the estimated cost for Type 2 official 
advertising is $1,305,878 for FY 2001-2002. Therefore, the 
total estimated cost for Type 1 and Type 2 official 
advertising for FY 2001-2002 would be $1,438,992. 

2. According Section 2.81-2(a) of the Administrative 
Code, the City is required to withhold 10 percent of the 
annual amounts paid for the City's Type 1 and Type 2 
official advertising and to designate such monies in the 
City's Outreach Advertising Fund (see Item 3, File 01- 
1444 of this September 26, 2001 report to the Finance 
Committee). 

3. Attachment I is a memorandum from Mr. Ward 
responding to questions raised by the Finance Committee 
at the Committee's meeting of August 22, 2001. According 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

to Mr. Ward, and as previously noted, no formal bids have 
been received from the Chronicle or the Examiner to 
provide the City's Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising. Both newspapers have responded to an 
inquiry from the Purchasing Division by offering their 
services to provide Type 1 official advertising in FY 2001- 
2002. Although both the Chronicle and the Examiner do 
not comply with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code 
pertaining to the City's Equal Benefits Ordinance, the 
Examiner also does not comply with Section 2.80-l(a) of 
the Administrative Code which requires that the City's 
Type 1 official advertising newspaper to be printed in the 
City. Given the limitations of the Examiner, the Chronicle 
is the only viable option available to the Board of 
Supervisors to be designated as the City's official 
newspaper to provide Type 1 consecutive day advertising, 
according to Mr. Ward. 

4. The City has not had a designated newspaper to 
provide for Type 1 consecutive day official advertising 
since the expiration of the City's contract with the 
Examiner on June 30, 2001. According to Mr. Ward, 
under Section 2.81 of the Administrative Code, the Board 
of Supervisors is required to annually designate a 
newspaper to provide for Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising for the City. According to Mr. Ward, if this 
proposed resolution is not approved to award a sole source 
contract to the Chronicle, the City would have no 
newspaper, under contract, to provide for the City's Type 
1 official advertising for FY 2001-2002. According to Mr. 
Ward, the City could then place consecutive day 
advertisements in the Chronicle, the Examiner, or any 
other newspaper that complies with the contracting 
requirements under the City's Charter and 
Administrative Code, on an as-needed basis. However, 
Mr. Ward further reports that some of the City's 
advertising requires placement in a newspaper that is 
under contract to the City to provide for the City's Type 1 
official advertising, and cannot be placed in a newspaper 
on an as-needed basis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Although Attachment I notes that the non-contract rate 
for advertising in the Chronicle is $16.33, Ms. Andrea 
Rosato of the San Francisco Chronicle states in a letter 
dated May 3, 2001 to the Purchasing Division 
(Attachment III) that the City would not be required to 
sign a contract with the Chronicle to receive the $8.42 per 
line contract rate proposed by the Chronicle. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



-en-IliilCH L. J. 



City and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 




Pipe 1 o.t 5 

Office of Contract Administrator 

Judith A. Blackwel 
Directo 



September 10,2001 



Purchasing Divisioi 




TO: Anna Weinstein 

Budget Analyst's Office 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

THROUGH: Judith A. E 
Director 
)ffice ofJSiJontra 

' Mi'chaelD> 

Assistant Director of Purchasing 
Office of Contract Administration 



RE: 



Official and Outreach Advertising Contracts 



I am pleased to respond to the questions contained in your email, dated August 22, 2001, 
regarding the City's official and outreach advertising contracts. Following, is a point by point response to 
each of your questions. Supporting documentation is provided where appropriate. 

OFFICIAL ADVERTISING 

On March 31, 2001, the Office of Contract Administration - Purchasing Division published an invitation 
to bid for Type 1 Consecutive Day Official Advertising. Bids were due April 20, 2001 and no bids were 
received in response to this solicitation. 

1. On May 2, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from the San Francisco Examiner 
expressing interest in providing advertising services to the City, at a rate of $7.13 per line for FY 2001- 
2002. A copy of this letter is appended to this memorandum, as Exhibit A. This letter was in reply to 
an inquiry by the Purchasing Division and is not a formal bid in response to an invitation to bid. 

On May 3, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from the San Francisco Chronicle indicating 
their willingness to extend to the City a bulk rate contract for advertising services, at a rate of S8.42 per 
line for FY 2001-2002. A copy of this letter is appended to this memorandum, as Exhibit B. This 
letter was in reply to an inquiry by the Purchasing Division and is not a formal bid in response to an 
invitation to bid. 

2. The "old" S.F. Examiner's contract rate for FY 2000-2001 was $2.46 per line. This is in reference to 
the Examiner that was owned and published by the Hearst Corporation. 

3. On November 21, 2000, the Purchasing Division received a letter from Mr. James L. Clancy, Vice 
President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the San Francisco Newspaper Agency, agent of the 
San Francisco Examiner, stating that due to the purchase of the Examiner by Exln, LLC, beginning 



City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco CA 94102-4685 Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-6717 
Home Page: www.ci.sf.ca.us/purchase/ Recycled paper E-mail: Purchasing@ci.sf.ca. us 

18 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 2 

November 22, 2000, the Hearst Corporation had no legal authority to publish the Examiner. In 
addition, Mr. Clancy indicated that any future advertising with the Examiner would have to be 
negotiated with the Exln, LLC directly.. A copy of this letter is appended as Exhibit C. 

Following, the Purchasing Division had numerous conversations with Mr. Bob Haddad, Vice President 
of Circulation of the Examiner and the Examiner's General Counsel, to clarify matters relating to the 
contract and to convey the City's desire to resolve the matter expeditiously. In addition, the 
Purchasing Division provided Exln, LLC and its General Counsel with documents relating to the 
contract. On December 19, 2000, the Purchasing Division sent a letter to Mr. Haddad urging the 
Examiner to finalize their decision to honor the terms and conditions of the "old" Examiner's contract. 

On January 2, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from Mr. Peter Herschberger, Vice 
President of Sales and Marketing for the Examiner, stating that the Examiner would agree to provide 
publication service for the City's advertisements under certain adjustments to the contract. A copy of 
this letter is appended to this memorandum as Exhibit D. Among other things, this letter stated that 
the "San Francisco Examiner is not printed within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco 
nor does it have plans to begin such printing in the foreseeable future." This was a matter of great 
concern to the Purchasing Division because Chapter DC, Section 2.80-1 (a) of the Administrative Code 
requires that the city's official newspaper be printed in the City and County of San Francisco. 

Subsequently, the Purchasing Division requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding the 
requirement to print in the City. On January 9, 2001, the City Attorney responded: "The answer is 
clear - the Examiner cannot continue to be the official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F. 
There is no way to get around this, unless the Board wants to amend the law." The law 

referenced by the City Attorney is Proposition J, passed by the voters in November 1994 and 
incorporated in the Administrative Code as Article DC: Official Newspaper (s) - relevant part is 
Section 2.80-1 (a) "Official Newspaper". 

The Purchasing Division checked with the Office of the Clerk of Board of Supervisors and was 
advised that consecutive day official advertising was not used extensively by the Board and there 
was no need identified for this service in the balance of the fiscal year. In consultation with the 
Purchasing Division, the Office of the Clerk of the Board decided that, to the extent possible, it 
would use the Independent as an alternate for publishing the city's official notices. Immediately, 
the Purchasing Division began to develop the new bid for official advertising scheduled for 
publication in March 2001. 

4. Circulation: Examiner, Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News: 

San Francisco Circulation Total Circulation 

All Days Sunday All Days . Sunday 

Examiner* ■ 35,000 35,000 52,000 52,000 

Chronicle 128,935 122,197 530,125 551,286 

San Jose Mercury 4,200 3,200 292,000 332,000 . 

19 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 3 

Sources: Chronicle - ABC Publisher's Interim Statement (audited) for 13 weeks ended 12/31/00 
Examiner- Examiner's circulation department 

* It should be noted that the Examiner has not been published on Saturdays since November 22, 2000. 
5. Price Per Line: Examiner, Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News: 





Per Line Rate 


Per Line Rate 




Non-Contract 


Contract 


Examiner 


S8.30 


S7.13 


Chronicle 


516.33 


S8.42 


San Jose Mercury News * 


No quote 


No quote 



* The San Jose Mercury News would not provide a price quote. The reason stated is that the San Jose 
Mercury News does not qualify for this contract because it is not printed in the City of San Francisco 
nor is it adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation for the City of San Francisco. A copy of the 
letter from the San Jose Mercury News is appended to this memorandum as Exhibit E. 

6. The Purchasing Division presented the Chronicle as a "viable option". If it is the preference of the 
Budget Analyst that we use the terminology "recommendation", in the future, to avoid confusion, we 
will make certain to do so. 

The Budget Analyst's report, dated August 16, 2001, aptly captures the intent of the Purchasing 
Division with regards to the resolution that was introduced for Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising: 

"The Purchasing Division suggests that the proposed sole source contract with the Chronicle is a 
viable option because, as stated in the attached memorandum from the Purchasing Division, (a) 
this is an instance when no bids were received, (b) there are no other qualified newspapers that 
are in compliance with Chapter 12B and (c) having a Type 1 official advertising newspaper is 
essential to the City and its residents." 

The Purchasing Division believes that Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code, Sec.12B.5-l (d) (1) 
pertaining to non-applicability, exceptions and waivers provides for a sole source contract in this case. 

Moreover, it should be noted that the City has only two major dailies that can compete for Type 1 
consecutive day official advertising - the Chronicle and the Examiner. The San Francisco Examiner 
does not meet Prop J requirements that the official newspaper must be printed in the City and County 
of San Francisco. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with Chapter 12B of the Administrative 
Code pertaining to equal benefits. Furthermore, the Examiner is not published on Saturdays, which 
limits the newspaper's ability to publish the city's Type 1 consecutive day official ads. 



20 



Page 4 Oj 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 4 

Again, we highlight that the opinion of the City Attorney is: "The answer is clear - the Examiner 
cannot continue to be the official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F. There is no way to get 
around this, unless the Board wants to amend the law." The law referenced by the City Attorney is 
Proposition J, passed by the voters in November 1994 and incorporated in the Administrative Code as 
Article DC: Official Newspaper (s) - relevant part is Section 2.80-1 (a) "Official Newspaper". 

With regards to the San Francisco Chronicle, this newspaper meets all Prop J requirements prescribed 
in the Administrative Code for the City's official newspaper, however, the Chronicle is not compliant 
with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

The Purchasing Division believes that given the limitations of the Examiner, the City Attorney's 
opinion and applicable Chapter 12B regulations, there is only one viable option available to the City 
for Type 1 consecutive day official advertising — the San Francisco Chronicle. 

OUTREACH ADVERTISING 

1 . The Purchasing Division had two alternatives for estimating the cost of outreach advertising for FY 
2001-2002. One was to prepare an estimate based on actual expenditures in FY 2000-2001. The other 
was to prepare a cost estimate based on the price per sample advertising submitted by each newspaper 
along with its bid. 

Based on the former analysis the projected cost for thirteen newspapers in FY 2001-2002 is 5206,067. 
This was based on a price per line calculation over 12 months. We then adjusted for a planned 9- 
month usage for a projected total of 5153,500. 

We then obtained sample copies of advertising and noticed that these were based, in large part, on the 
following: 

a. Ads exceeding the 4" x 6" ad size required by the City 

b. Different type sizes and column widths 

c. Some prices are not as specified in outreach advertising contracts 

See, Exhibit F containing copies of actual ads published by outreach newspapers in FY 2000-2001 . 

At the request of the Board, we also performed a different analysis of projected costs based on the bids 
only, taking into account: 

a. cost of the ad, based on price per line and number of lines per ad 

b. translation costs, where applicable 

c. number cf ads that will be published by each newspaper in FY 2001-2002 

Surprisingly, the projected cost for thirteen newspapers, for FY 2001-2002 for twelve months under 
this new analysis is 5142,488, or 598,694 for nine months. See Exhibit G, containing a copy of these 
two budgets. 

You also requested an explanation of the estimate cost of outreach advertising in FY 2001-2002. Our 
reply to this question is appended as Exhibit H 



Attachment l 
Page 5 of 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 5 

2. A survey conducted by the Purchasing Division, during the week of August 27, 2001, shows that 
departments do both place ads through the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and place ads going 
directly to the outreach advertising newspapers. With regards to payments, departments responded 
that payment for ads placed directly to the outreach advertising newspapers is through the departments 
own budget, and does not ever impact the outreach advertising fund. 






The California Newspaper Service Bureau (CNSB) - the agency responsible for coordinating billing 
for the outreach newspapers - indicated that they maintain two separate accounts for outreach 
advertising. One is for the weekly ad placed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the other is 
for ads placed by departments directly to outreach newspapers. 

The CNSB further stated that invoices for ads placed by departments are sent to the department placins 
the ad. Adding that all payments for the Board of Supervisors' weekly outreach advertising are subjec 
to the approval of the Office of the Clerk of the Board. 

With regards to payments, the Office of the Clerk of the Board indicated to the Purchasing Division 
that they approve payments for the Board's weekly ad only. 

Source: Survey of departments conducted by the Office of Contract Administration, 08/27/01 
California Newspaper Service Bureau 

Please, see Exhibits I through M, responding to other questions in your email (Outreach Advertising. Nos. 
2 through 6) . 

We trust this memorandum answered all of your concerns. If you have additional questions or need more 
information, email or contact me at 554-6740. 



cc: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 



22 



ty and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 




Page 1 ot 3 

Purchasing Department 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director 



Aueust 1,2001 



To: 



Through: 



From: 



Subject: 



Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 




Judith A. BlackweU--cr 



Assistant Director of Purchasing 
Purchasing Department 



Designating Official and Outreach Newspapers for FY 2001-2002 



The Purchasing Division is writing this letter in response to inquiries from members of the Finance Committee with 
regards to the designation of newspapers for official and outreach advertising services for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Official Advertising - Type 1 Consecutive Day 

Purchasing solicited but did not receive bids for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising. However, the San Francisco 
Chronicle offered its services to the City at a bulk contract rate of S8.42 per line. 

The Chronicle meets the Administrative Code requirements for an official newspaper, including circulation of 
50,000 per week, consecutive day publication and is printed in the City. However, the Chronicle is not compliant 
with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

A sole source contract with the Chronicle is a viable option because this is an instance when no bids were received, 
there are no qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 12B and the contract is essential to the City 
and its residents. With regards to Chapter 12B, the Purchasing Division will request a waiver from the Human 
Riehts Commission. 



The following is the estimated advertising costs for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising for FY2000-01 and 
FY2001-2002. 

Chronicle 
Examiner Offer 

FY 2000-2001 FY 200 1-2002 



Cost Per Line 
Estimated annual cost: 
Annual Cost Increase: 
Percent Increase: 



S2.46 


S8.42 


538,890 


5133,114 




S 94,224 




243% 



-i Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fajc (415) 554-6717 San Francisco CA 94102-4685 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Paae 2 



The contract rate of S2.46 per line in FY 2000-2001 was based on the Examiner circulation of 108,896, according 
to the Audit Report of September 30, 1999. The circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle for the period 
ending March 31, 2001 are All Day 527,466 and Sunday 540,074. 

Tne Chronicle's offer of S8.42 per line is a considerable saving off the open non-contract rate of 516.33 per line. A 
rate of S8.42 per line is the equivalent of a bulk contract rate. 

It should be noted that the San Francisco Examiner also expressed interest in providing its services to the City. 
However, the Examiner is not printed in the city as required by Article DC of the Administrative Code and has no 
intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with the requirements of 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit A is the draft of a resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division to negotiate a sole 
source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Outreach Advertising 

The Purchasing-Division solicited bids for outreach advertising and received only four responsive bids - one from the 
Hispanic community and three from the Chinese community. 

Given the number of responsive bids received, only two communities mandated by Proposition J would have outreach 
advertising coverage in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In addition, non-Prop. J communities -requested by the Board in 
Resolution No. 841-00, passed October 2, 2000- would not have outreach advertising coverage. These are the Russiai 
Southeast Asian, Korean and Filipino communities. 

Given that the newspapers submitting responsive bids do not adequately serve all neighborhoods, the Board might wa 
to authorize additional outreach advertising. As proposed, the maximum estimated cost of cost outreach advertising fi 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be $206,067. This amount depends on the number of outreach newspapers that will be 
authorized by the Board. The total estimated amount that will be available in the Outreach Advertising Fund in Fisca 
Year 2001-2002 is 5241,392. Should the Board elect to authorize the proposed additional advertising, community 
coverage would be as follows: 

Community Outreach Newspaper 

Hispanic/Latino: El Mensajero 

El Latino 
El Reportero 

Chinese China Press 

Chinese Times 
AsianWeek 

African American San Francisco Bay View 

Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender Spectrum 

Bay Area Reporter 
S.F. Bay Times 

24 



Page 3 ot 3~ 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1, 2001 
Page 3 



Community Outreach Newspaper 

Russian Russian Life 

Southeast Asian Mo Magazine 

* Japanese Hokubei Mainichi 

* Not requested by the Board in Resolution No. 841-00. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit B is the draft of a resolution designating outreach advertising newspapers and 
authorizing the Purchasing Division to execute contracts with the designated periodicals. The Purchasing Division 
requests that this item be treated as an Amendment of the Whole and calendared for the Finance Committee meeting of 
August 8, 2001. 

On file, is a resolution (File No. 01-0867) designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and County 
of San Francisco for the Chinese community, and El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of 
San Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. On 
05/30/01, the Finance Committee continued this item. And on 07/18/01, the Committee again continued the item, to 
the Call of the Chair. 

The Purchasing Division's contact persons for File No. 01-0867 and the proposed Amendment of the Whole, and 
official advertising resolution are: 

Mike Ward 554-6740 

Luis Espinoza 554-6736 

Please, advise if the Board needs additional information before the Finance Committee or Full Board meeting. 
The Purchasing Division looks forward to reviewing this matter with the Board. 

Exhibits: 

A. Resolution - Official Advertising 

B. Resolution - Outreach Advertising 



cc Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



25 



mn Jfanrisci) Chronicle 

a Hearsl Newspaper 



May 3, 2001 



Andrea Rosato 

Call Center Mnrtnjjer 
C/oi4l)ltri Advertising 



City and County of San Francisco 

Purchasing Department 

City Hall, Room 430 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodkli Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Luis M. Eapinoza 
Senior Purchaser 



Dear Luis: 

The San Francisco Chronicle is billing lu extend to the City and County of San Francisco the rale of S 8.42 
per line, which is equivalent to a bulk contract level of 3,000 lines per quarter, or 12, 000 lines per year. 

This is a considerable saving off ihe open non-contract 2 X consecutive rate of 516.33 per line. In addition, 
The City and County of San Francisco will not be short rated if it docs not achieve the bulk contract 
pcrformaucc of 3,000 lines minimum per quarter, and will nor be required to sign a contract. 

The contract rate thai was extended to the City and County for the term July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 
of S2.46 a line, was based on The Examiner circulation of 108,896 according to the Audit Report of 
September 30, 1999. Our most recent circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle released from the 
Fas-Fax for a six-month period which ended March 3 1, 2001 are: All Day, 527,466 - Sunday, 540,074. 
Also, we will continue to deliver ten Chronicle newspapers to your office every Friday. 

Please contact me if you have a question. 

Sincerely, 




Andrea Rosato 

Call Center Manager 

San Francisco Chronicle 

AR/gc 



9m fflulon Street • S«n Fr.nncisco • CA 9<i"l ■ ph: (<I5) 777"7jD4 ' f«: (415) 5J&--I10S ' paser; ^15) 050-2036 • email-. .irosatoosfchrOnlcle.com 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 -File 01-1444 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of August 
22, 2001. 



Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Administrative Services, Office of Contract 
Administration, Purchasing Division 

Resolution designating El Mensajero, El Latino and El 
Reportero to be outreach newspapers for the City's 
Hispanic/Latino community; designating the China Press, 
the Chinese Times and the Asian Week to be outreach 
newspapers for the City's Chinese community; 
designating the San Francisco Bay View to be the 
outreach newspaper for the City's African American 
community; designating the San Francisco Spectrum, the 
Bay Area Reporter and the San Francisco Bay Times to be 
outreach newspapers for the City's Gay/ 
Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community; designating 
Mo Magazine to be the outreach newspaper for the City's 
Southeast Asian community; designating the Russian Life 
to be the outreach newspaper for the City's Russian 
community; and designating the Hokubei Mainichi to be 
the outreach newspaper for the City's Japanese 
community, for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Proposition J, which was approved by San Francisco 
voters in November of 1994, provided, in part, for an 
Outreach Advertising Fund to be established for the 
purpose of the City placing "outreach advertising" or 
weekly notices of items pertaining to governmental 
operations in periodicals selected to reflect the diversity in 
race and sexual orientation of the population of the City. 
Outreach advertisements include, but are not limited to, 
information about issues that are being reviewed by the 
Board of Supervisors and that directly affect the public. 
Pursuant to Proposition J and in accordance with Section 
2.81-2(a) of the Administrative Code, the City is required 
to withhold 10 percent of the annual amounts paid for the 
City's Type 1 and Type 2 official advertising and to 
deposit these monies into the Outreach Advertising Fund. 

1. Since the passage of Proposition J, approved by the 
voters in November of 1994, bid prices are only one of 
several factors evaluated and considered when 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



determining the designated outreach newspapers. Other 
factors include (a) the size of the newspaper's circulation 
area, (b) the newspaper's cost to the public, (c) ownership 
of the newspaper by a minority-owned, women-owned, or 
locally-owned business, (d) whether the newspaper is 
printed in the language of the outreach community, and 
(e) the newspaper's compliance with all contracting 
requirements under the City's Charter and the 
Administrative Code, according to Mr. Mike Ward of the 
Purchasing Division. Proposition J requires the 
Purchasing Division to recommend to the Board of 
Supervisors the newspapers with the highest total point 
scores in each outreach community. 

2. According to Mr. Ward, the Purchasing Division 
recommends that the Board of Supervisors designate the 
China Press and El Mensajero to provide outreach 
advertising for FY 2001-2002. The China Press received 
the highest score of the three responsive bids from 
newspapers seeking to provide outreach advertising to the 
Chinese community. El Mensajero was the only 
responsive bidder of the three bids from newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising to the 
Hispanic/Latino community. In addition to recommending 
the China Press and El Mensajero, the Purchasing 
Division suggests that the Board of Supervisors "might 
want to authorize additional outreach advertising" (see 
Attachment I, an August 1, 2001 memorandum from Ms. 
Judith Blackwell of the Purchasing Division to the Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors). The Purchasing Division 
suggests that such additional outreach advertising could 
be achieved by designating the 11 other newspapers that 
submitted bids to the Purchasing Division to provide 
outreach advertising for FY 2001-2002. Attachment II, 
provided by the Purchasing Division, contains bid data 
and point calculation information for the 2 newspapers 
which the Purchasing Division recommends be designated 
to provide outreach advertising and the 11 other 
newspapers which the Purchasing Division suggests could 
be designated by the Board of Supervisors to provide 
outreach advertising for FY 2001-2002. 

3. As noted in Attachment II, 4 of the 13 newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising submitted bids 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



that were considered by the Purchasing Division to be 
responsive. According to Mr. Ward, El Mensajero, serving 
the Hispanic/Latino community, and the China Press, the 
Chinese Times, and the Asian Week, all serving the 
Chinese community, fully comply with all City contracting 
requirements under the Charter and the Administrative 
Code and qualify with their responsive bids to be 
designated to provide for the City's outreach advertising. 

4. As noted in Attachment II, 9 of the 13 newspapers 
seeking to provide outreach advertising submitted bids 
that were considered to be non-responsive by the 
Purchasing Division. According to Mr. Ward, these 9 
newspapers do not qualify to be designated to provide 
outreach advertising for the following reasons: (a) 
Hokubei Mainichi and Mo Magazine do not comply with 
the requirements of Chapter 12B, pertaining to Equal 
Benefits requirements of the Administrative Code, and 
Russian Life does not comply with the requirements of 
Chapters 12B and 12D, pertaining to the 
Minority/Women/Local Business Enterprise Utilization 
requirements of the Administrative Code, (b) the San 
Francisco Bay View, the Bay Area Reporter and the San 
Francisco Bay Times are not printed in San Francisco, as 
required by Administrative Code, Section 2.80-1, (c) El 
Latino, the San Francisco Spectrum and the San 
Francisco Bay Times are not published weekly, as 
required by Administrative Code, Section 2.80-1, and (d) 
El Reportero, the San Francisco Spectrum and Hokubei 
Mainichi submitted their bids late. 

5. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's 
Office, the Board of Supervisors is authorized to and has 
previously designated newspapers to provide outreach 
advertising even though such newspapers do not comply 
with all contracting requirements under the City's 
Charter and the Administrative Code. 

6. The following seven newspapers were designated as 
outreach advertising newspapers for FY 2000-2001: El 
Reportero and El Latino for the Hispanic/Latino 
community; the Chinese Times and Asian Week for the 
Chinese community; the San Francisco Bay View for the 
African American community; and the San Francisco 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Spectrum and the San Francisco Bay Times for the 
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender community. Mr. Ward 
notes that the City's contracts with these seven 
newspapers have been extended on a month-to-month 
basis since they expired on June 30, 2001. 

7. As noted in the attached September 10, 2001 
memorandum from Mr. Ward to the Budget Analyst 
(Attachment III), the estimated cost of outreach 
advertising for FY 2001-2002 would be $206,067 if the 
Board of Supervisors were to designate all 13 newspapers 
which submitted bids to provide outreach advertising and, 
as stated by Mr. Ward, cost projections were based on 
actual expenditures in FY 2000-2001. Attachment IV, 
provided by the Purchasing Division, includes the 
following: (a) an outreach advertising cost estimate of 
$206,067 for FY 2001-2002, (b) the method of calculation 
of this estimate, and (c) the reasons for discrepancies in 
the number of lines of advertising budgeted for each 
outreach community. 

This cost estimate of $206,067 assumes that El Reportero, 
El Latino, the Asian Week, the Chinese Times, the San 
Francisco Spectrum, the San Francisco Bay Times, and 
the San Francisco Bay View, the seven newspapers which 
were designated as outreach advertising newspapers in 
FY 2000-2001, publish the same amount of lines of 
typeset for the City in FY 2001-2002 as they did in FY 
2000-2001. Mr. Ward reports that upon reviewing a 
sample of outreach advertisements placed in FY 2000- 
2001, the Purchasing Division discovered that four out of 
these seven designated outreach newspapers in FY 2000- 
2001 published advertisements that were larger than four 
inches wide by six inches high, which is the maximum 
size allowed for an official advertisement according to 
Section 2. 80- 1(d) of the Administrative Code. Mr. Ward 
advises that in some instances, the City was being billed 
by outreach newspapers at a rate different from what was 
specified in their FY 2000-2001 outreach advertising 
contracts. According to Mr. Ward, outreach 
advertisements that exceeded maximum size and that 
were not in accordance with the rates specified in their 
contracts resulted because of inadequate monitoring by 
City staff and the California Newspaper Service Bureau, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

which is the agency responsible for coordinating billing for 
the outreach newspapers. 

8. In Attachment V, the Purchasing Division has 
provided an alternative cost estimate to provide outreach 
advertising in FY 2001-2002. As shown in Attachment V, 
the estimated cost of outreach advertising for FY 2001- 
2002 would be $142,488 if the Board of Supervisors were 
to designate all 13 newspapers which submitted bids to 
provide outreach advertising for the City and cost 
estimates were "based on the price per ad quoted, and 
frequency of publication of each of the thirteen 
newspapers seeking to provide outreach advertising in FY 
2001-2002." 

This cost estimate of $142,488 assumes that all outreach 
advertisements placed in the 13 newspapers which 
submitted bids are uniform in size in that each 
advertisement would be four inches wide and six inches 
high and that such advertisements have a minimum font 
size of 5.5 point type and approximately 500 words. 

9. After reviewing the assumptions and calculations used 
by the Purchasing Division, the Budget Analyst concludes 
that the two cost estimates of $206,067 and $142,488, a 
difference of $63,579, provided by the Purchasing Division 
represents a reasonable range for the cost of outreach 
advertising in FY 2001-2002. However, variations due to 
the following could result in either higher or lower actual 
costs: (a) compliance with the maximum size and 
contractual rate of each outreach advertisement, (b) the 
font size and number of words contained in each outreach 
advertisement, and (c) the actual number of 
advertisements placed in FY 2001-2002. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



City arid County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 



Attachment I 
fa°;e 1 of 3 




Purchasing Departmen 

Judith A. Blackwe 
Directc 



August 1 , 200 1 



To: 



Throueh: 



From: 



Subject: 



Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Judith A. Blackwe. 
Director of Purging 
"^UrchasingDep 

it YwxcZ-'^ 

u Michael 
Assistant Director of Purchasing 
Purchasing Department 




Designating Official and Outreach Newspapers for FY 2001-2002 



Official Advertici-n^ -r , ~ ~ 



Official Advertising _ TvnA i r- 

u ^" & iype 1 Consecutive Day 



Purchasing solicited hut a;a 

Chronicle^offered fc s^ces £ ZTJ^ ^7** ' Consecu ** DV Advertising. However the Sa P ■ 

mces t0 Ae Clt y at a bulk contract rate of SS.42 per line. " oweve r, the San Francisccj 

The Chronicle meets the Adm' * ( 

A 1 • Z 

a sole source contract with the m,™-; i • 

Rights Commission. PtCr 12B ' the Purc hasmg Division will request a waiver from the Human 

The following is thp p mm „ j . 

FY2001-20of. StheCS "™= d ^»- S ^for Type 1 Consecutive D ay Adven.siog for FY2000-0, and 

Chronicle 
Examiner Offer 

^ 2000-2001 FY 2001-200? 



Cost Per Line 
Estimated annual cost: 
Annual Cost Increase: 
Percent Increase: 



S2.46 
S38.890 



S8.42 
$133,114 

S 94,224 
243% 



City Ha!!, Room 430 1 Dr Carlton R 

Ho m ePa g e: ^.^.ca^pu^^ B " Go °^tt P!ace Te,.(415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-6717 San Francisco CA 941 02-4585 



Att 
Us 



Attachment I 
Page 2 ot 3~ 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Paae 2 



The contract rate of S2.46 per line in FY 2000-2001 was based on the Examiner circulation of 108,896, according 
to the Audit Report of September 30, 1999. The circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle for the period 
ending March 3 1, 2001 are All Day 527,466 and Sunday 540,074. 

The Chronicle's offer of S8.42 per line is a considerable saving off the open non-contract rate of S 1 6.33 per line. A 
rate of S8.42 per line is the equivalent of a bulk contract rate. 

It should be noted that the San Francisco Examiner also expressed interest in providing its services to the City. 
However, the Examiner is not printed in the city as required by Article DC of the Administrative Code and has no 
intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with the requirements of 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit A, is the draft of a resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division to negotiate a sole 
source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Outreach Advertising 

The Purchasing-Division solicited bids for outreach advertising and received only four responsive bids - one from the 
Hispanic community and three from the Chinese community. 

Given the number of responsive bids received, only two communities mandated by Proposition J would have outreach 
advertising coverage in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In addition, non-Prop. J communities -requested by the Board in 
Resolution No. 841-00, passed October 2, 2000- would not have outreach advertising coverage. These are the Russian, 
Southeast Asian, Korean and Filipino communities. 

Given that the newspapers submitting responsive bids do not adequately serve all neighborhoods, the Board might want 
to authorize additional outreach advertising. As proposed, the maximum estimated cost of cost outreach advertising for 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be S206.067. This amount depends on the number of outreach newspapers that will be 
authorized by the Board. The total estimated amount that will be available in the Outreach Advertising Fund in Fiscal 
Year 2001-2002 is 5241,392. Should the Board elect to authorize the proposed additional advertising, community 
coverage would be as follows: 

Community Outreach Newspaper 

Hispanic/Latino: El Mensajero 

El Latino 
El Reportero 

Chinese China Press 

Chinese Times 
AsianWeek 

African American San Francisco Bay View 

Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexuaiyTransgender Spectrum 

Bay Area Reporter 
S.F. Bay Times 

33 



Pape 3 ot 3 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Page 3 



Community Outreach Newspaper 

Russian Russian Life 

Southeast Asian Mo Magazine 

* Japanese Hokubei Mainichi 

* Not requested by the Board in Resolution No. 841-00. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit B is the draft of a resolution designating outreach advertising newspapers and 
authorizing the Purchasing Division to execute contracts with the designated periodicals. The Purchasing Divisio 
requests that this item be treated as an Amendment of the Whole and calendared for the Finance Committee meeti 
August 8,2001. 

On file, is a resolution (File No. 01-0867) designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and C 
of San Francisco for the Chinese community, and El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and County 
San Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. On 
05/30/01, the Finance Committee continued this item. And on 07/18/01, the Committee again continued the iterr 
the Call of the Chair. 

The Purchasing Division's contact persons for File No. 01-0867 and the proposed Amendment of the Whole, anc 
official advertising resolution are: 

Mike Ward 554-6740 

Luis Espinoza 554-6736 

Please, advise if the Board needs additional information before the Finance Committee or Full Board meeting. 
The Purchasing Division looks forward to reviewing this matter with the Board. 



Exhibits: 

A. Resolution - Official Advertising 

B. Resolution - Outreach Advertising 

cc Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



34 





! li^'fiL 

igl"SJe|=| 5 , 

IIJIJ I J I ii 



35 



Attachment II 
e .2 of 2 




City and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 




September 10,2001 



Attachment III 

Office of Contracf g Administration 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director 

Purchasing Division 



TO: 



THROUGH: 



FROM: 



RE: 




Anna Weinstein 

Budget Analyst's Office 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Judith A. B 
Director 
)ffice ofJContra 



Assistant Director of Purchasing 
Office of Contract Administration 

Official and Outreach Advertising Contracts 



I am pleased to respond to the questions contained in your email, dated August 22, 2001, 
regarding the City's official and outreach advertising contracts. Following, is a point by point response to 
each of your questions. Supporting documentation is provided where appropriate. 

OFFICIAL ADVERTISING 

On March 31, 2001, the Office of Contract Administration - Purchasing Division published an invitation 
to bid for Type 1 Consecutive Day Official Advertising. Bids were due April 20, 2001 and no bids were 
received in response to this solicitation. 

1 . On May 2, 2001 , the Purchasing Division received a letter from the San Francisco Examiner 

expressing interest in providing advertising services to the City, at a rate of S7.13 per line for FY 2001- 
2002. A copy of this letter is appended to this memorandum, as Exhibit A. This letter was in reply to 
an inquiry by the Purchasing Division and is not a formal bid in response to an invitation to bid. 

On May 3, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from the San Francisco Chronicle indicating 
their willingness to extend to the City a bulk rate contract for advertising services, at a rate of S8.42 per 
line for FY 2001-2002. A copy of this letter is appended to this memorandum, as Exhibit B. This 
letter was in reply to an inquiry by the Purchasing Division and is not a formal bid in response to an 
invitation to bid. 



2. The "old" S.F. Examiner's contract rate for FY 2000-2001 was S2.46 per line. This is in reference to 
the Examiner that was owned and published by the Hearst Corporation. 

3. On November 21, 2000, the Purchasing Division received a letter from Mr. James L. Clancy, Vice 
President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the San Francisco Newspaper Agency, agent of the 
San Francisco Examiner, stating that due to the purchase of the Examiner by Exln, LLC, beginning 



ity Hall, Room 430 

>me Page: www.ci.sf.ca.us/purchase/ 



1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodiett Place San Francisco CA 94102-4685 Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-6717 

Recycled paper 37 E-mail: Purchasino@ci.sf.ca. us 



Page 2 of 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 2 

November 22, 2000, the Hearst Corporation had no legal authority to publish the Examiner. In 
addition, Mr. Clancy indicated that any future advertising with the Examiner would have to be 
negotiated with the Exln, LLC directly.. A copy of this letter is appended as Exhibit C. 

Following, the Purchasing Division had numerous conversations with Mr. Bob Haddad, Vice Preside] 
of Circulation of the Examiner and the Examiner's General Counsel, to clarify matters relating to the 
contract and to convey the City's desire to resolve the matter expeditiously. In addition, the 
Purchasing Division provided Exln, LLC and its General Counsel with documents relating to the 
contract. On December 19, 2000, the Purchasing Division sent a letter to Mr. Haddad urging the 
Examiner to finalize their decision to honor the terms and conditions of the "old" Examiner's contract 

On January 2, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from Mr. Peter Herschberger, Vice 
President of Sales and Marketing for the Examiner, stating that the Examiner would agree to provide 
publication service for the City's advertisements under certain adjustments to the contract. A copy of 
this letter is appended to this memorandum as Exhibit D. Among other things, this letter stated that 
the "San Francisco Examiner is not printed within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco 
nor does it have plans to begin such printing in the foreseeable future." This was a matter of great 
concern to the Purchasing Division because Chapter DC, Section 2.80-1 (a) of the Administrative Cod 
requires that the city's official newspaper be printed in the City and County of San Francisco. 

Subsequently, the Purchasing Division requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding the 
requirement to print in the City. On January 9, 2001, the City Attorney responded: "The answer is 
clear - the Examiner cannot continue to be the official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F. 
There is no way to get around this, unless the Board wants to amend the law." The law 

referenced by the City Attorney is Proposition J, passed by the voters in November 1994 and 
incorporated in the Administrative Code as Article DC: Official Newspaper (s) - relevant part is 
Section 2.80-1 (a) "Official Newspaper". 

The Purchasing Division checked with the Office of the Clerk of Board of Supervisors and was 
advised that consecutive day official advertising was not used extensively by the Board and thei 
was no need identified for this service in the balance of the fiscal year. In consultation with the 
Purchasing Division, the Office of the Clerk of the Board decided that, to the extent possible, it 
would use the Independent as an alternate for publishing the city's official notices. Immediatel 
the Purchasing Division began to develop the new bid for official advertising scheduled for 
publication in March 2001. 

4. Circulation: Examiner, Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News: 

San Francisco Circulation Total Circulation 

All Days Sunday All Days . Sunday 



Examiner * 


35,000 


35,000 


52,000 


52,000 


Chronicle 


128,935 


122,197 


530,125 


551 ,286 


San Jose Mercury 


4,200 


3,200 


292,000 


332,000 



38 



n l- Lati 



Page 3 ot b 

Letter to .Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 3 

Sources: Chronicle - ABC Publisher's Interim Statement (audited) for 13 weeks ended 12/31/00 
Examiner- Examiner's circulation department 

* It should be noted that the Examiner has not been published on Saturdays since November 22, 2000. 
5. Price Per Line: Examiner, Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News: 





Per Line Rate 


Per Line Rate 




Non-Contract 


Contract 


Examiner 


S8.30 


S7.13 


Chronicle 


S16.33 


S8.42 


San Jose Mercury News * 


No quote 


No quote 



* The San Jose Mercury News would not provide a price quote. The reason stated is that the San Jose 
Mercury News does not qualify for this contract because it is not printed in the City of San Francisco 
nor is it adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation for the City of San Francisco. A copy of the 
letter from the San Jose Mercury News is appended to this memorandum as Exhibit E. 

6. The Purchasing Division presented the Chronicle as a "viable option". If it is the preference of the 
Budget Analyst that we use the terminology "recommendation", in the future, to avoid confusion, we 
will make certain to do so. 

The Budget Analyst's report, dated August 16, 2001, aptly captures the intent of the Purchasing 
Division with regards to the resolution that was introduced for Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising: 

"The Purchasing Division suggests that the proposed sole source contract with the Chronicle is a 
viable option because, as stated in the attached memorandum from the Purchasing Division, (a) 
this is an instance when no bids were received, (b) there are no other qualified newspapers that 
are in compliance with Chapter 12B and (c) having a Type 1 official advertising newspaper is 
essential to the City and its residents." 

The Purchasing Division believes that Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code, Sec.12B.5-l (d) (1) 
pertaining to non-applicability, exceptions and waivers provides for a sole source contract in this case. 

Moreover, it should be noted that the City has only two major dailies that can compete for Type 1 
consecutive day official advertising - the Chronicle and the Examiner. The San Francisco Examiner 
does not meet Prop J requirements that the official newspaper must be printed in the City and County 
of San Francisco. In addition, the Examiner is not compliant with Chapter 12B of the Adininistrative 
Code pertaining to equal benefits. Furthermore, the Examiner is not published on Saturdays, which 
limits the newspaper's ability to publish the city's Type 1 consecutive day official ads. 



39 



Aur.acn.menu 111 
Page 4 of 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 4 

Again, we highlight that the opinion of the City Attorney is: "The answer is clear - the Examiner 
cannot continue to be the official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F. There is no way to gt 
around this, unless the Board wants to amend the law." The law referenced by the City Attorne 
Proposition J, passed by the voters in November 1 994 and incorporated in the Administrative Code 
Article DC: Official Newspaper (s) - relevant part is Section 2.80-1 (a) "Official Newspaper". 

With regards to the San Francisco Chronicle, this newspaper meets all Prop J requirements prescrib 
in the Administrative Code for the City's official newspaper, however, the Chronicle is not complia 
with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

The Purchasing Division believes that given the limitations of the Examiner, the City Attorney's 
opinion and applicable Chapter 12B regulations, there is only one viable option available to the City 
for Type 1 consecutive day official advertising - the San Francisco Chronicle. 

OUTREACH ADVERTISING 

1 . The Purchasing Division had two alternatives for estimating the cost of outreach advertising for FY 
2001-2002. One was to prepare an estimate based on actual expenditures in FY 2000-2001. The ot] r 
was to prepare a cost estimate based on the price per sample advertising submitted by each newspap 
along with its bid. 

Based on the former analysis the projected cost for thirteen newspapers in FY 2001-2002 is S206,06 
This was based on a price per line calculation over 12 months. We then adjusted for a planned 9- 
month usage for a projected total of $153,500. 

We then obtained sample copies of advertising and noticed that these were based, in large part, on tr. 
following: 

a. Ads exceeding the 4" x 6" ad size required by the City 

b. Different type sizes and column widths 

c. Some prices are not as specified in outreach advertising contracts 
See, Exhibit F containing copies of actual ads published by outreach newspapers in FY 2000-2001. 



At the request of the Board, we also performed a different analysis of projected costs based on the bi 
only, taking into account: 

a. cost of the ad, based on price per line and number of lines per ad 

b. translation costs, where applicable 

c. number of ads that will be published by each newspaper in FY 2001-2002 






Surprisingly, the projected cost for thirteen newspapers, for FY 2001-2002 for twelve months under 
this new analysis is 5142,488, or 598,694 for nine months. See Exhibit G, containing a copy of these 
two budgets. 

You also requested an explanation of the estimate cost of outreach advertising in FY 2001-2002. On 
reply to this question is appended as Exhibit H 

40 



fiucacnrnent: 111 
Page 5 of 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 5 

2. A survey conducted by the Purchasing Division, during the week of August 27, 2001, shows that 
departments do both place ads through the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and place ads going 
directly to the outreach advertising newspapers. With regards to payments, departments responded 
that payment for ads placed directly to the outreach advertising newspapers is through the departments' 
own budget, and does not ever impact the outreach advertising fund. 

The California Newspaper Service Bureau (CNSB) - the agency responsible for coordinating billing 
for the outreach newspapers - indicated that they maintain two separate accounts for outreach 
advertising. One is for the weekly ad placed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the other is 
for ads placed by departments directly to outreach newspapers. 

The CNSB further stated that invoices for ads placed by departments are sent to the department placing 
the ad. Adding that all payments for the Board of Supervisors' weekly outreach advertising are subject 
to the approval of the Office of the Clerk of the Board. 

With regards to payments, the Office of the Clerk of the Board indicated to the Purchasing Division 
that they approve payments for the Board's weekly ad only. 

Source: Survey of departments conducted by the Office of Contract Administration, 08/27/01 
California Newspaper Service Bureau 

Please, see Exhibits I through M, responding to other questions in your email (Outreach Advertising. Nos. 
2 through 6) . 

We trust this memorandum answered all of your concerns. If you have additional questions or need more 
information, email or contact me at 554-6740. 



Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 



41 



Attachment TV 
Page 1 ot J 



1 I 1 


Outreach Advertising Services 


Estimated Cost 


Fiscal Year 2001-2002 I 




Ave. No. ! Bid | Estimated | 


Lines Price Cost for 


| FY 2000-01 | Per Line | FY 2001-02 | 


Hispanic 


El Reportero 18.009| 1.601 S28,814| 


El Latino 9,244| 1.50| S13,866| 


El Mensajero 13,627*1 2.45 1 $33,387| NewContract 




Chinese 


China Press 9,012**| 1.88 1 $16,943| NewContract 


AsianWeek 14,124| 2.03 1 $28,672| 


Chinese Times 3,90o| 1.871 $7,292| 




Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sex/Transgender 


Spectrum 4,776| 2.00I $9,552| 


Bay Reporter 5,459 — '| 1.88| $10,263| NewContract 


S.F.Bay Times 6,142 3.95| $24,263| 




African American 


San Francisco Bay View 3,897| 1.80| $7,015) 




Vietnamese 


Mo Magazine *~**| $3,744| NewContract 




Russian 


Russian Life ****| $3,536 1 NewContract 




Japanese 


Hokubei Mainichi *~~| $18,720 1 NewContract 






Total All Communities I $206,067| 


' I I 


i'l I 


The average number of lines used is the average for the Hispanic community. 


** The average number of lines used is the average for the Chinese community. 


"*" The average number of lines used is the averaqe for the Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transgender community 


"" Calculation is based on the Quoted cost per ad x 52 ads per year I 



Source: Purchasing Division 



42 



Page Z ot !i 



Exhibit H 



The Purchasing Division derived the estimated costs contained in the budget report entitled Outreach 
Advertising Services. Estimated Cost. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 according to the following methodology: 

Newspaper on contract for FY 2000-2001 (El Latino. El Reportero. Chinese Times. Asian Week. . 
Bav View. Spectrum and S.F. Bay Times'): 

1 . Estimated Expenditures. Obtained actual expenditures for ten months in FY 2000-2001, from 
the California Newspaper Service Bureau. These figures were projected over a twelve-month 
period. 

2. Price Per Line. Obtained the price per line charged by each outreach newspaper. This data was 
taken from the bids submitted in FY 2000-2001 by each newspaper. 

3. Estimated Number of Lines in FY 2000-2001. Divided the estimated expenditures in FY 2000- 
2001 by the price per line charged by each newspaper, to arrive at the estimated number of lines in 
FY2000-2001. 

4. Estimated Cost in FY 2001-2002. Multiplied the estimated number of lines in FY 2000-2001 
times the price per line quoted in the bid for FY 2001-2002. 

Other bidders for the Hispanic. Chinese and Gav/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transgender communities (El 
Mensajero. China Press and Bay Area Reporter): 

1 . Estimated the Average Number of Lines for Each Community. Calculated the average number 
of lines for each community, based on FY2000-2001 data. This established a bench mark number 
of lines for each community. 

2. Estimated Cost. Multiplied the average number of lines for each community by the cost per line 
quoted for FY 2001-2002 by each of the three newspapers seeking outreach advertising for these 
communities (El Mensajero, China Press and Bay Area Reporter). 

Newspapers bidding for the Japanese. Vietnamese and Russian communities CHokubei Mainichi. Mo 

Magazine and Russian Life): 

1 . Estimated Cost in FY 2001-2002. Estimates were based on the price per ad times the total 
number of ads to be published in FY 2001-2002. Calculation was approached this way because 
there is no benchmark number of lines for the Japanese, Vietnamese and Russian communities in 
FY 2000-2001. 



43 



Pap;e 3 of 3 



Exhibit I 



Reasons for a discrepancy in the number of lines budgeted for each outreach community 

a. Only a few newspapers stay in or near the 4" x 6" size requirement for outreach advertising. 

Many use more space. See Exhibit F containing copies of actual ads published by outreach 
newspapers in FY 2000-01 

b. Variation in frequency of publication - some newspapers are published weekly, others bi- 
weekly and others monthly. See Exhibit K containing frequency of publication for each of the 
thirteen newspapers seeking outreach advertising in FY 2001-2002. 

c. Variations in typesetting - here the key factors to consider are type size and column width. Typs 
size and column widths vary with each newspaper. These two factors then reflect on the number c 
lines per ad. 

d. Translation cost - outreach newspapers for the Hispanic and Chinese communities are paid for 
translating ads, which is in addition to publication costs. The figures provided to the Purchasing 
Division did not segregate translation costs from the cost of the outreach notice. So, our 
calculations for these two communities were based on inflated figures resulting in a higher numbe 
of lines. 



44 



nLLau' unci i L. 




Page 1 of 2 

Gity and County of San Francisco Purchasing Department 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. Judith A. Blackwell 

Mayor Director 

September 18,2001 



TO: Anna Weinstein 

Budget Analysts Office 

FROM: Mike Ward 

Assistant Director of Purchasing 
Office of Contract Administration 

RE: Outreach Advertising Budget Projection FY 2001-2002 

In response to your request, this memorandum will provide you with an explanation of the Outreach 
Advertising Budget Projections - FY 2001-2002 , which was appended to my memorandum of September 
10,2001 as Exhibit G. 

The information used for such budget projections was taken from the bid submitted by each the thirteen 
newspapers seeking to provide outreach advertising in FY 2001-2002. The date taken from these bids are 
name of newspaper, community, frequency of publication of each newspaper, cost of advertising notice, 
cost of translating notice, total cost per ad. This information was used to perform calculations for the 
budget projections. 

The ad required by the bid is according to the following specifications: 

1 . advertisement no larger than 4" wide by 6" high, as required by Administrative Code, ArticleEX, 
Section2.80-1 (d). 

2. advertisement set at no smaller than 5 54 point type 

3. 500 word ad 

The budget projections were prepared by taking the cost of notice and multiplying by the number of ads 
that will be published in FY 2001-2002, by each newspaper. The number of ads is determined by the 
frequency of publication of each newspaper. A translation cost was added to the cost of notice, for those 
newspapers serving the Chinese, Hispanic, Southeast Asian, and Russian communities, which are 
published in the native language of those communities. The Japanese newspaper does not charge a fee for 
translation. Total cost in FY 2001-2002 was derived by adding the cost each of the thirteen newsapers. 

The advantage of this approach to preparing these budget projections is that it is based on the price per ad 
quoted, and frequency of publication of each of the thirteen newspapers seeking to provide outreach 
advertising in FY 2001-2002. The reliability of this budget is predicated on ensuring compliance with 
prices quoted, correct invoicing, and adherence to the required contract specifications by each of the 
newspapers that will be designated by the Board. 



City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Tel. (41 5) 554-6743 Fax (41 5) 554-671 7 San Francisco CA 941 02^685 

Home Page: www.ci.sf.ca.us/purchase/ Recycled paper E-mail: Purchasing@ci.sf.ca. us 

45 



flttacnmeni > 
Paee 2 ot 2~ 



CD 



CO 



— z 

OT g 

log 

S*J uj o 

> -3 CM 

< {£ O 

S2 h >- 
< UU >; 

LU O 

g§ 

o m 









o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 




o 




M 


m 




q 


q 


o 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


o 


q 


o 


q 


o 




q 




I/) 

o 






d 


■* 


cm 


d 


d 


CM 


CO 


d 


CO 


d 


d 


d 


CD 




CO 








CM 


co 


[>- 


CO 


^3- 


CO 


CO 


•c- 


LO 


(«. 


CM 


LO 






CO 




CJ 


c 




r^ 


cr> 


CO 


CM 


•>3- 


CD 


r^-_ 


co 


T_ 


o 


r~-_ 


0> 


CD 




T 




"ra 


o 
2 




d 


a> 


CO" 


t»T 


d 


CO 


DO 




"* 


^- _ 


oo 


r-" 


d 




CN 










CM 
























■* 







CN 
































r ~ 




H 






fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


<=e 


fee 


be 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


te 


fee 




te 






W 




































en 


£ 




































T3 
< 


C 

o 






































2 




CM 


CO 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CN 


CD 


CM 


CM 


CM 








O 




« 


CM 


m 


CO 


LO 


CO 


LO 




LO 


CM 


LO 


LO 


LO 










<N 




































d 






































2 


C 










































o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


a 


O 


o 


O 


o 








1/3 






o 


q 


q 


o 


o 


o 


q 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


q 








O 


T3 




d 


■<* 


-^ 


d 


^r 


d 


d 


d 


CO 


CD 


d 


co 


d 








U 


< 




to 


co 


CD 


^r 


CM 


CO 


CD 


h- 


r-~ 


CM 


CD 


LO 


o 










CO 


co 


T 












CM 


^r. 


CO 


















































CO 


a 




































o 


CL 




































H 






fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


be 










c 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 














o 


o 










_0 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 














o 


q 














d 


d 


in 


d 


d 














in 


d 








"lo 


ra 




in 


CD 


co 


m 


T 














co 


co 








O 


en 




*~ 


,— 






























U 


C 
ra 








































fee 


fee 


oe 


fee 


fee 














fee 


fee 










H 






































>, 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


a 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 










C 

O 




o 


q 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


q 












d 


^r 


d 


d 


■3- 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


CM 








en 






n 


CM 


CJ) 


CO 


CD 


CO 


[»» 


h- 


CM 


CD 


CO 


N- 








o 


CD 




CM 


CM 


^r 






t— 


\— 




CM 


-3- 


CO 












CJ 


_o 






































O 




W 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


fee 


foe 


fee 


fee 


fee 








>,_ 






































o 


c 




^cC 


f 


^r 


XL 


XL 


X 


XL 


— 


XL 




X 


X 


X 








o 


o 




CO 


c 


CD 


CD 


CD 


co 


CD 


c 


CD 


>« 


CO 


CO 


CO 












CD 


o 


CD 


ID 


CD 


CD 


CD 


o 


CD 


XL 


CO 


CO 


CD 








c 


ra 




5 


E 


5 


5 


5 


3 


5 


E 


5 


CD 


5 


5 


5 








s 


u 






















CD 














3 






o 


CD 
Q. 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 
Q, 


CD 


g 


CD 


CO 


CO 








o- 


.a 




CL 


CL 


a 


a, 


O- 


C_ 


CL 




a. 


CL 


CL 








CO 


3 




X 


X 

CM 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


s 


X 


X 


X 








U. 


Q. 






" 


CO 


CO 










LO 


*" 






























CO 


en 


en 


































C 


c 


C 
































c 


CD 


co 


ra 




C 












E 




o 


o 


U 


0) 


a> 


CD 


CO 
JO 

CD 


"x 

CD 


t 

X 

CD 


H 

CD 


CO 
en 


co 
'en 
< 


c 










3 

E 




C 

CD 


c 

CD 


c 

co 


CO 

co 


in 

CD 


en 

CD 


E 


in 


CO 


en 


CO 

c 


"en 


CD 
en 












CL 


tt 


a 


c 


c 


C 


< 


m 


5 


5 


CD 


CO 


en 










E 








en 

I 


in 
I 


d 
O 


1c 
O 


O 


c 
co 


5 

en 


5 

en 


2 

en 


CL 
CD 


CO 


3 

cr 










o 
















u 


CD 


CD 


CD 




3 




























_J 


_j 


_J 




o 




























< 


">- 

CD 

o 


"3< 

CD 
O 


"5i 

co 






CO 
































CD 










































Lc 














0) 












(B 








5 


en 


O 














a 








o 

CD 
"CD 
o-i 
C 
Cj 
2 




CJ 




5 




a 


d> 


C 


CO 












ra 

CL 

en 

m 

2 




o 
ai 

o 
a 

CD 


O 

c 
a 


H 

CD 

cL" 

CD 
C 


E 

h- 

CD 
ID 

CO 

c 
C 


CD 
<D 

5 

c 

CD 
en 


CD 
> 
> 
CD 

m 

LL 


1 

u 

CD 

Q 


CD 

K 

co 

CD 
< 
CD 


E 
1- 
>~ 

CO 

m 

LL 


'co 

3 
O 


C 

'lM 
CD 

a 

CD 

o 


in 

c 

CD 
'en 
en 
3 




< 

o 










LU 


LU 


LU 


o 


O 


< 


00 


00 


CQ 


ui 


X 


2 


rr 









A6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 4 and 5-Files 01-1579 and 01-1564 



Departments: 



Items: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of the Environment 

File No. 01-1579 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to an existing lease 
in order to provide an additional 2,362 square feet at 11 
Grove Street for the Department of Environment. 

File No. 01-1564 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the amount 
of $46,971 to fund the expansion of leased space at 11 
Grove Street. 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



First floor of 11 Grove Street (also commonly known as 
1212 Market Street) 

To provide the Department of the Environment with an 
additional 2,362 square feet of office space. 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



Yully Company, LLC 

City and County of San Francisco on behalf of the 
Department of the Environment 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Rental Cost 
To The City: 



Annual Increases to 
the Base Rent: 



Term of Lease: 



2,362 square feet at $6,495.50 per month, or $2.75 per 
square foot, totaling $77,946 annually. 

Rent will be increased originally based on the percentage 
change in the Building Owners and Managers 
Association Experience Exchange Report (BOMA) for 
"San Francisco, Downtown Buildings between 50,000 and 
99,999 sq. ft." from the prior year on a rent per square 
foot basis with 2000 as the base year. The first such 
adjustment will be made one year after the start of the 
proposed lease (see Comment No. 6). 

The anticipated term of the lease is from November 1, 2001 
(based on the estimated completion of tenant 
improvements) through June 30, 2004 (32 months). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 

Utilities: 

Janitorial Services: 

Tenant 
Improvements: 

Source of Funds: 



Description: 



One one-year option to extend, consistent with the lease 
extension option in the original lease. Rent for the 
extension term would be consistent with the annual 
percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

Landlord is responsible for utilities. 

Landlord is responsible for janitorial services. 



The Landlord would provide $13,000 in tenant 
improvements. The City would provide an additional 
$31,240 in tenant improvements for total tenant 
improvements of $44,240. (See Comment No. 4.) 

According to Mr. David Assmann of the Department of the 
Environment, the source of funds is (1) the $46,971 
proposed release of funds on reserve (File No. 01-1564) from 
a $7,800,000 California Public Utilities Commission grant 
in the Department's FY 2001-2002 budget and (2) $40,236 
already included in the FY 2001-2002 Department of the 
Environment budget for Rent from a $13,000,000 State 
grant for the Environmental Health and Energy (EHE) 
Initiative (see Comment No. 5). 

File No. 01-1579 

The proposed lease amendment would expand the existing 
space that the Department of the Environment leases at 11 
Grove Street (also known as 1212 Market Street) by 2,362 
square feet from 4,263 total square feet to 6,625 square 
feet. Currently, the Department of the Environment leases: 

(a) 2,069 square feet on the ground floor for an EcoCenter 1 

(b) 1,694 square feet on the first floor for office space and (c) 
500 square feet in the basement for bicycle storage. The 
proposed lease amendment would expand the office space at 
11 Grove Street by 2,362 square feet from 1,694 to 4,056 
square feet, an increase of over 139 percent. The proposed 
lease amendment would expand the total space leased by 



1 The EcoCenter provides public education and outreach on local environmental issues, in accordance 
with the Department of the Environment's Charter mandate. The EcoCenter includes educational 
displays, a library of environmental documents and computer kiosks available to the public for 
research. It also houses the Resource Efficient Building pilot program, which demonstrates the use of 
environmentally-sound building materials, such as non-toxic paints and energy-efficient lighting. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



the Department of the Environment at 11 Grove Street by 
2,362 square feet from 4,263 square feet to 6,625 square 
feet, an increase of over 55 percent. 

According to Mr. Assmann, the proposed lease amendment 
would provide office space for 10 Department of the 
Environment employees and one San Francisco Public 
Utilities Commission employee. Such employees would be 
working on programs related to two recent Department of 
the Environment grants: (1) $7,800,000 from the California 
Public Utilities Commission for the "Power Boosters 
Program," a State grant approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in August 2001 (File No. 01-1431) and (2) 
$13,000,000 in State grant funds for the Environmental 
Health and Energy (EHE) Initiative approved by the Board 
of Supervisors in May 2001 (File No. 01-0257). 

The proposed lease amendment would provide office space 
for employees hired for the two grant programs. According 
to Mr. Assmann, the "Power Boosters Program" is designed 
to help small business owners improve energy efficiency 
and thus reduce energy costs. The program will provide 
small businesses with energy efficiency audits free of 
charge, and for a fee, provide a range of technical services. 
Small business owners will receive partial rebates and 
subsidies on the purchase and installation of new 
equipment as part of the program. Mr. Assmann advises 
that the Department of the Environment is in the process of 
hiring the four new employees under this State grant 
program who would occupy the proposed additional office 
space. In addition, three existing Department of the 
Environment employees would work on this grant program 
in the proposed additional space as well as one existing 
employee of the Public Utilities Commission. 

The second State grant of $13,000,000 is for the 
Environmental Health and Energy (EHE) Initiative. Mr. 
Assmann advises that the EHE Initiative is a program that 
provides grants to community organizations to address 
environmental health and energy issues in the Bayview 
Hunters Point and Potrero Hill neighborhoods. Mr. 
Assmann advises that the goal of the EHE Initiative is to 
improve the quality of life of the residents of the Bayview 
Hunters Point and Potrero Hill communities. The EHE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Initiative proposes to address the environmental and 
economic disparities in the Bayview Hunters Point and 
Potrero communities by training and employing residents 
to conduct assessments and implement programs in the 
areas of environmental health and energy. The EHE will 
provide funds to 13 grantees including Hetch Hetchy, the 
Department of Public Health, nine nonprofit organizations 
and two for-profit firms (M. Cubed and Tetra Tech). Mr. 
Assmann advises that three new employees have already 
been hired with the EHE Initiative grant funds. They will 
ultimately work in the office space to be provided under the 
proposed lease amendment but are currently working in a 
conference room that has been temporarily converted to 
office space at 11 Grove Street. 

File No. 01-1564 

The requested $46,971 release of reserved funds would 
provide part of the funds for the payment of rent at 11 
Grove Street under the proposed lease amendment (File 
No. 01-1579). Mr. Assmann advises that such funds are 
part of the $7,800,000 California Public Utilities 
Commission grant. In August 2001 when the Board of 
Supervisors approved the grant, the Department of the 
Environment had anticipated leasing additional space at 11 
Grove Street but had not yet negotiated the lease. 
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors had placed the $46,971 
on reserve at that time. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Assmann advises that the Department of the 

Environment currently has 17 employees (14 staff and 
three interns) at 11 Grove Street. Eleven of the staff 
members and the three interns are housed in the existing 
first floor 1,694 square feet of office space resulting in 121 
square feet per employee. Mr. Assmann advises that the 
remaining three employees were just recently hired for the 
EHE Initiative and are currently working in a ground floor 
conference room that was temporarily converted to office 
space. The proposed 2,362 square feet of additional office 
space will house the following employees: (1) the three 
employees working in the conference room (2) three 
existing employees working in the existing office space (3) 
four grant-funded employees who will be hired in the near 
future and (4) one San Francisco Public Utilities 
Commission employee, currently working out of the offices 

BOAKD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



of the Public Utilities Commission, who is on loan to the 
Department of the Environment. The result will be 11 
employees in the proposed additional 2,362 square feet of 
space, providing approximately 215 square feet per 
employee. The proposed lease amendment would bring the 
total Department of the Environment office space at 11 
Grove Street to 4,056 square feet, or 162 square feet for 
each of the 25 employees including the new State grant- 
funded employees (21 Department of the Environment 
staff, 3 Department of the Environment interns, and one 
San Francisco Public Utilities employee). According to Mr. 
Charlie Dunn of the Real Estate Division, the above square 
footage per employee is consistent with the City's standard 
of space per employee. 

2. Mr. Dunn advises that under the existing 11 Grove 
Street lease, which began July 1, 2000, the City pays 
$10,047 monthly for 3,763 square feet of retail and office 
space at 11 Grove Street, at a monthly rate of 
approximately $2.67 per square foot plus $513 monthly for 
500 square feet of bicycle storage space. The total of 4,263 
square feet results in a monthly rental cost of $10,560 
monthly or $126,720 annually. Under the proposed lease 
amendment, the City would pay $2.75 per square foot for 
the additional 2,362 square feet of office space resulting in 
$6,495.50 in additional monthly rent or additional annual 
rent of $77,946. Therefore, approval of this lease 
amendment would result in total monthly rent of 
$17,055.50 or $204,666 annually, an increase of $77,946 
annually or approximately 62 percent. 

Mr. Dunn advises that the proposed monthly rental rate of 
$2.75 represents the fair market value based on the lease 
term and the tenant improvement allowance. He further 
advises that while commercial real estate South of Market 
has been significantly affected by the economic downturn, 
Civic Center was less affected and current rents still range 
from $2.50 per square foot per month to $3.75 per square 
foot per month, depending upon the amount of space leased 
and the lease term. Mr. Dunn advises that $2.75 per square 
foot per month was the best rate the Real Estate Division 
was able to negotiate given that the proposed lease 
amendment (1) is a relatively short-term lease (2) provides 
for a relatively small amount of space and (3) the lease 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



provisions include a $13,000 allowance from the Landlord 
for tenant improvements. 

3. The term of the proposed lease amendment is 32 months, 
anticipated to begin on November 1, 2001 and end on June 
30, 2004, with a one-year option to extend. Mr. Assmann 
advises that the $7,800,000 Power Boosters grant is a 23- 
month grant, scheduled to end June 30, 2003, meaning that 
it will expire one year before the proposed lease 
amendment expires. Mr. Assmann believes that it is very 
likely that the California Public Utilities Commission will 
extend the grant beyond June 30, 2003. However, should 
the grant not be extended, Mr. Assmann advises that the 
Department would use the office space for four employees of 
other Department programs that are currently located 
offsite. Such programs would likely include the Solid Waste 
Management Program and possibly the Clean Air Program. 
Mr. Assmann advises that the rent would be paid from the 
Solid Waste Management Program's budget. Mr. Assmann 
further advises that any remaining difference would be 
paid from EHE Initiative grant funds. 

The $13,000,000 grant for the EHE Initiative is for the 
period from July 2001 through June 2004 consistent with 
the term of the proposed lease amendment, excluding the 
one-year extension option. 

4. The proposed resolution stipulates that the City will 
provide up to $20,000 for tenant improvements to 11 Grove 
Street in addition to $13,000 that will be provided by the 
Landlord for such improvements, for a total of $33,000. Mr. 
Assmann advises, however, that the Department's original 
estimate of $33,000 for the total cost of the improvements 
was low and has since been revised to $44,240, of which the 
Landlord would still pay $13,000 and the City would pay 
the remaining balance of up to $31,240. Therefore, Mr. 
Assmann advises that the Department has requested that 
the proposed resolution be amended accordingly. Mr. 
Assmann further advises that approximately half of the 
proposed 2,362 square feet is unfinished and that the 
tenant improvements will include finishing and installing 
walls, installing flooring, and painting. The Attachment, 
provided by the Department, is a line-item budget of the 
proposed tenant improvements totaling $44,240. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



5. Rent for the proposed 2,362 square feet would total 
$51,964 for FY 2001-2002 ($6,495.50 per month for the 
eight months from November 1, 2001 through June 30, 
2002). Combined with the Department's cost of $31,240 in 
tenant improvements, the total cost to the City for rent and 
improvements in FY 2001-2002 would be $83,204. In 
addition to these costs, the Department of the Environment 
would pay the Real Estate Division $4,000 for the services 
provided related to the proposed lease amendment, 
bringing total costs to $87,204. Mr. Assmann advises that 
such costs would be paid from the requested $46,971 
release of reserved State grant funds in the Department's 
FY 2001-2002 budget and $40,236 available within the 
Department's budget from the State Environmental Health 
and Energy Initiative grant for an available total of 
$87,207. 

6. Mr. Dunn advises that the BOMA report provides data 
from an annual survey of San Francisco building owners' 
operating expenses and fixed costs. Mr. Dunn explains that 
annual adjustments to the base rent will approximate 
annual percentage increases in the BOMA data. Mr. Dunn 
advises neither the proposed lease amendment nor the 
existing lease include a limit on annual increases to the 
base rent. Mr. Dunn advises that for the existing lease at 
11 Grove Street, the Landlord has not yet notified the City 
of the first rent increase based on BOMA data. Mr. Dunn 
further advises that 1999 BOMA data serves as the base for 
adjustments in the original lease and that 2000 data will 
serve as the base for annual adjustments to the proposed 
lease. 

Mr. Dunn also informs that, because the Landlord will pay 
for operating expenses (i.e., utilities and janitorial services) 
instead of the City, that the BOMA report index is a more 
objective measure for determining annual increases instead 
of a passthrough of the Landlord's actual costs, since the 
BOMA report is based on an average of such costs by a 
large number of office buildings. 

7. While the proposed legislation allows the Department of 
the Environment to accept donations of materials and 
supplies for the construction of tenant improvements, Mr. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Assmann advises that the Department's schedule for 
completing tenant improvements and moving in may not 
allow sufficient time to request such donations. 

Recommendations: (1) In accordance with Comment No. 4, amend the proposed 
resolution as follows: on page 1, lines 21, 22, and 23, delete 
the following sentence: "The City shall pay for the amount 
of tenant improvements which exceeds $13,000 up to a limit 
of $20,000 for the construction of tenant improvements." In 
its place, add "The Landlord shall pay for $13,000 in tenant 
improvements and the City shall pay up to but not exceeding 
$31,240 in tenant improvements for total tenant 
improvements up to but not exceeding $44,240." Approve the 
proposed resolution, as amended. 

(2) Approve the requested release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $46,971. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



w ro 



8co 













o 
o 












































IO 




o 




JS 








CO 












































l CO" 




CN 










69 












































CO 






- 




















































:69 




^3- 


H 
























































"fr 
























































<y» 






o 


o o 


O 1 o 


o 


o 


o 


O Oi 


o o 


o o 


OIO 


o o o ;o 


O 


O 


o 










JS 


o 


OIO 


O; O 


o 


o 


o 


o ol 


OIO 


CO 


o 


o 


0:0 


O IO ,0 iCD 


O 


O 


^T 












in in 




tin 


LO 


en 


CO 


m 


t °- 


■3-r- 


CO 


in 


o 


■* 


-g- 


CM 


m ,t-ioi 




LO 








_ 1 
< 




IS 


CO" 


T _" 


,_" 


CD 




CO 


"* 


in 


,_" 


Oi 




^ r-" 


69 


cm" 


cm" 


69 


69 


cm" 


69169 


69 


69 


69 


CO" 








o 


69 


69 


69 


69 




««■ 


69 


69 


6» 


69 


69 


ite- 




69 


69 






69 










CO 






IS 














































69 






h- 


! 3 

CO 






















































o 






o 


o o 








OiO.O 


IO 


O 


IOIO 


OlOlO'O O'OiO 


O 


O 


O 














o 


olo 








o oio 


o 


o 


o o 


JololO'O:OiO!L0 


CD 


O 


O 












c 




mm 








m 


in co 


m 


CD 








°. ° 


CO ICO 'CD |C0 69 


CO 




in 










o 


3 


CO 


,_r 


^T 








-T-" 


,_-i69 


|c\T 






69 


yj 






,_" 


69.6969J69 




69 


69 


69 










co 


o 
E 
< 


69 


69 


69 








t& 


69 




I&9 


S 






69 




69 


69 












































!o 












m 










O 


O 




































m 












69 












O 


m 




































!&■> 
























ro 


69 




















CD 

o 








































69 




















































































Q. 


















































































cd 












o 












CM 


CD 


















































CM 
































,_ 
































CM 
































o 
































































-Q 


c 






























































ED 


3 






























































—I 
















































































o 


O 


o 


o 










O 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 






























o 


o 


o 


o 










O 


CO 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


O 


LD 


o 














£ 
















o 


o 


CO 


CO 










CD 


CO 


m 


O 






CD 


CM 


69 
















c 

3 














c\T 


co 


"* 












co" 


69 


,-T 


,-T 


69 


69 


■r-" 


69 




69 














S 


o 














69 


69 


69 


69 










69 




69 


69 






69 




















CO 


E 






























































2 


< 


















































































o 


o 










o 


<* 










O 






















CD 


















o 


in 










co 


69 










O 






















O 


















CO 












69 












CO 








































cy» 


69 






















69 






















Q. 


















































































en 


CM 










o 


O 










CM 




















"CO 
































CM 


CM 
































-- 






























CM 


CM 






























£> c 






























































CD 


3 






























































2 




















































































* 
















































c 
















69 
















































g 
















+ 
















































CO 

c 
















o 
o 
















































■a 














IN 














































o 














Si** 














































o 












o 
















































O 














15 


















































oS 














ro 
















































c 














C/5 














































co 






























































to 

0) 
Q 

3 




c 

CO 








c 
o 


gj O) 


to 

o 








"5 




o 
o 

n 
















CO 
















c 
en 
'en 
CD 
Q 


'w 

CD 

Q 








ro 


1 


JC 

en 
_j 


c 
o 
O 


CD 






Cl 
CD 

O 


i"S 


_to 


JX. 


_to 


CO 

c 




O 




^ 


"CD 
C 

2 
















U 
CD 










c 


CD 

o 


2 


en 
c 


o 


._: 




CD 

> 


Q. 


CD 

5 


O 
O 


~CD 


"5 

O 




O 
LL 


C 
CJ) 


C 
CjO 


CD 

o 
















s 


< 


"5 






i< 


o 


cd 
c 


E 
E 


Q. 
CD 


o 
5 




O 

E 


0) 
Cl 


CD 
Q. 


CD 
CJ 


CD 

CD 


C 


c 


O 
r- 


01 X 


CD 
> 


CD 

> 


1 












£i>'.s2 






> 


0) 


CD 


CD 


CD 




CD 


CD 


CD 


it 


J= 


"co 


'ro i ^ 


O 


O 


CD 










1 


<!XiLU 






iXILUlOlO 


h- 


z: 




K 


o 


u 


O co 


0. 


0.15 _)!LUl2iS D_ 











55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-1394 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 

Description: 



Airport 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that Airport Information Booth Services at San Francisco 
International Airport can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor at a lower cost than if 
work were performed by City and County employees. 



Airport Information Booth Services 

The Airport Information Booth Services Program, which 
is operated daily from 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, was 
established by the Airport in 1990 to provide centralized 
locations for the purpose of (a) providing information to 
air passengers regarding Airport facilities and services, 
available ground transportation services, regional hotel 
accommodations, and visitor services and events, and (b) 
selling transit passes for regional public transportation 
systems to employees and MUNI passports to visitors. 
Currently, the Airport has a total of six information 
booths on the Arrival Levels in three of the terminals at 
the Airport. There are two booths in the North Terminal, 
two booths in the South Terminal, and two booths in the 
new International Terminal. According to Ms. Alice 
Sgourakis of the Airport, the old International Terminal 
(currently the Central Terminal) previously housed one 
information booth, but that booth was closed in the Fall of 
2000 so that the Central Terminal could be renovated. 
Ms. Sgourakis advises that after the renovation is 
complete in the Spring of 2003, the Airport will re-open 
the information booth in the Central Terminal. 

Polaris Research and Development, Inc. (Polaris), a 
private contractor, has provided information booth 
services to the Airport since the establishment of the 
program in 1990. 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services that can be 
practically performed for a lower cost than similar work 
by City and County employees. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



The Controller has determined that contracting for the 
Aii-port Information Booth Services for FY 2001-2002 
would result in estimated savings as follows: 



Comments: 





Lowest 


Highest 




Salary 


Salary 


City-Operated Service Costs 


Step 


Step 


Salaries 


$1,884,508 


$2,232,348 


Fringe Benefits 


521.842 


575.748 


Total 


$2,406,350 


$2,808,096 


Contractual Services Cost 1 


(1,517,986) 


(1.519.481) 


Estimated Savings 


$888,364 


$1,288,615 



1. The Airport reports that Airport Information Booth 
Services were first certified as contractual services as 
required under Proposition J (Charter Section 10.104) in 
1990, and have been continuously provided by an outside 
contract since then. 



2. Ms. Sgourakis reports that the most recent Airport 
Information Booth Services contract with Polaris began 
on October 15, 1995. The contract term was for one year, 
with four annual renewals up to a maximum term of five 
years. That contract with Polaris, including the four 
annual renewals, expired on October 14, 2000. According 
to Ms. Sgourakis, at the end of the fourth one-year 
renewal period on October 14, 2000, the Airport modified 
its original contract with Polaris to extend the contract for 
one additional twelve-month period, from October 15, 
2000 through October 14, 2001. 

The Airport has recently negotiated a new one-year 
contract with Polaris/TRG joint venture in response to a 
Request for Proposals process (see Comment 3) that 
began on September 15, 2001, one month before the fifth 
one-year contract extension was set to expire. 



1 Contractual Service Costs include high and low estimates of contract monitoring expenses by 
Airport staff, according to Mr. Joe Matranga of the Controller's Office. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. According to Ms. Sgourakis, on January 19, 2001, the 
Airport issued a Request for Proposals from firms seeking 
to provide information booth services to the Airport for 
the period of September 15, 2001 through September 14, 
2002. In response to this Request for Proposals, the 
Airport received three responses. Polaris/TRG joint 
venture was selected by the Airport to continue to provide 
the Airport Information Booth Services. 

4. The Contractual Services Cost used for the purpose of 
this analysis is based on the current contractor's costs to 
provide Airport Information Booth Services for the 
twelve-month period from September 15, 2001 through 
September 14, 2002. 

5. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire, with the 
Department's responses, is attached to this report. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

DEPARTMENT: SFIA Landside Operations 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Airport Information Booth Program 
CONTRACT PERIOD: September 15, 2001 to_September 14. 2002 

(1) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

Polaris Research and Development has performed these services since the Program's inception in 1990. 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None (soe #1) 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 

N/A (see Item #1) 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent of services to be contracted out? 
N/A (see Item #1) 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or 
an ongoing request for contracting out? 

Services have been contracted out since the Program's inception on October 15, 1990. This will be an 
ongoing request for contracting out. 

(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each 
subsequent year? 

It was first certified in Fiscal Year 1990/91 and ha3 been certified each subsequent year. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

The services will be provided by Polaris/TRG Joint Venture. 

Polaris is registered as a large local MBE firm with the Human Rights Commission. The Robert Group 
(TRG) is a certified MAVBE. Currendy eighty percent (80%) of the Polaris personnel employed on the AI 
program are minorities. Under the new contract, presently being negotiated, the contractor is required to 
meet a 4% combined MAVBE subcontracting goal. The goal will be met by utilizing certified MBE office 
supply and personnel training providers. 

(8) Does the proposed contractor provide health insurance for Its employees? 

Polaris docs offer a full benefits package to employees including health and disability coverage, life 
insurance, sick leave and vacation pay. The Contractor also provides a 401 K retirement program for 
employees. 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same 
benefits provided to employees with domestic partners? Jf not, how does the proposed contractor 
comply with the Domestic Partners ordinance? 

Polaris provides benefits to employees with spouses and offers these benefits to domestic partners. 

(10) Does the proposed contractor pay meet the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance? 

Yes, Polaris complies with the stipulations of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance. 



Department Representative: 




gz&sM 



feBnscoc, Deputy Airpon Director - Operations 
Telephone Number: _ f650) S21-5010 

POLARIS Prop. J Questionnaire 2001-02 mod. 

59 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 01-1525 



Department: Controller 

Item: Resolution establishing the City and County's Appropriations 

Limit for FY 2001-2002 pursuant to Article XIII B of the 
California Constitution. 

Description: The proposed resolution would establish $1,717,059,535 as 

the FY 2001-2002 adjusted Appropriations Limit for the City 
and County of San Francisco as required by Article XIII B of 
the California Constitution. 

On November 6, 1979, California voters approved Proposition 
4, known as the Gann Initiative, which added Article XIII B 
to the California Constitution. Article XIII B limits the 
growth of appropriations from the proceeds of taxes of the 
State of California and local governments to the percentage 
change in population for the local governmental entity and 
the percentage change in the cost of living. The California 
Government Code requires that each local government 
establish its Appropriations Limit by resolution each year. 

State Proposition 111, approved by the voters in June 1990, 
made several changes to Article XIII B (9) which are reflected 
in the City's computations. First, Proposition 111 redefined 
change in the cost of liuing as follows: 

"Change in the cost of living" for an entity of local 
government, other than a school district or a community 
college district, shall be either (A) the percentage change in 
California per capita personal income from the preceding 
year, or (B) the percentage change in the local assessment 
roll from the preceding year for the jurisdiction due to the 
addition of local nonresidential new construction. Each 
entity of local government shall select its change in the cost 
of living pursuant to this paragraph annually by a 
recorded vote of the entity's governing body. 

According to the State Department of Finance, the 2001 
percentage change in California per capita personal income 
from the preceding year is 7.82 percent. The Assessor's Office 
advises that the percentage change in the local assessment 
roll from the preceding year for the jurisdiction due to the 
addition of local nonresidential new construction is 0.33 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

60 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



percent 1 . The proposed resolution specifies that the 
Appropriations Limit calculations pursuant to Article XIII B 
shall use the percentage change in the California per capita 
personal income as the measure of "change in the cost of 
living", and not the percentage change from the preceding 
year in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local 
nonresidential new construction because the use of that 
measure would have resulted in a significantly lower 
Appropriations Limit calculation. According to the 
Controller's Office, the percentage change in the California 
per capita personal income has been used to calculate the 
City's Appropriations Limit since Article XIII B was 
amended in June of 1990. 

Second, Article XIII B as amended by Proposition 111 also 
states that appropriations subject to limitation do not include 
"appropriations required to comply with mandates of the 
Courts or the Federal Government". The Controller has 
identified one such mandate for FY 2001-2002 totaling 
$3,971,109, through a survey of all City departments related 
to toxic remediation required by the Federal Resource 
Conservation Act. 

Lastly, Article XIII B (9), as amended by Proposition 111, 
also permits an adjustment to exclude appropriations for 
"Qualified Capital Outlay as defined by the legislature" from 
proceeds of taxes. This results in a reduction of $32,583,269 
for FY 2001-2002, from appropriations of proceeds of taxes 
subject to the limit for Capital Outlay. 

The Controller has computed the FY 2001-2002 
Appropriations Limit for the City and County of San 
Francisco as shown on the following page (percentages and 
computed amount have been rounded by the Controller): 



1 Based on new, non-Residential construction in 2001 of $236,988,000 and a total 2000 Assessed 
Valuation Roll of $71,567,849,034. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

61 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



FY 2000-2001 Gross Appropriations Limit $1,569,917,337 

Adjusted by : 

Increase in Cost of Living 7.82% 

Increase in Population 1.44% 

FY 2000-2001 Net Appropriations Limit $1,717,059,535* 

*1.0782 times 1.0144 equals 1.093726 times $1,569,917,337. 

The Controller's Office monitors revenues subject to the 
Appropriations Limit throughout each fiscal year. At year-end, 
as part of the annual financial audit, a final computation is 
prepared comparing actual proceeds of taxes to the 
Appropriations Limit. At that time, two tests must be met. 
First, all actual proceeds of taxes must be below the 
Appropriations Limit; and second, all actual proceeds of taxes 
collected must be appropriated. If either test is not met, 
according to Article XIII B, excess revenues collected must be 
returned to the taxpayers within two years. 

The amount appropriated in the City's FY 2001-2002 budget 
that is subject to the Appropriations Limit is $1,530,406,991 
which is $186,652,544 less than the net FY 2001-2002 
Appropriations Limit of $1,717,059,535. In accordance with the 
Administrative Provisions of the Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance, any FY 2001-2002 tax proceeds in excess of current 
estimates will be appropriated to the City's General Fund 
General Reserve, which is used as a revenue source (a) to fund 
supplemental appropriations during the current fiscal year, 
and (b) to fund the City's budget for the next fiscal year. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8 -File 01-1445 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
August 22, 2001. 



Departments: 



Item: 



Description: 



Department of Administrative Services 
San Francisco Convention Facilities 

Resolution authorizing the Director of 
Administrative Services to execute amendment(s) to 
the design agreement for the new Moscone Center 
Expansion Project, which would increase the total 
agreement by $1,000,000 from $14,026,326 to 
$15,026,326. 

On May 16, 1997, based on the results of a 
competitive request for proposal process, the Director 
of Administrative Services entered into a contract 
with Gensler/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi Architects 
(Gensler) for architectural and engineering design 
and related services for the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project in the amount of up to 
$10,960,596. This architectural and engineering 
design contract was not approved by the Board of 
Supervisors because, according to Mr. Leonard Tom, 
Director of Finance for the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project, only $8,000,000 of the 
$10,960,596 was available to be certified for this 
design contract at the contract award time. Section 
9.118(b) of the City's Charter requires that all 
agreements in excess often years or $10,000,000 and 
subsequent amendments in excess of $500,000 be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ted Lakey 
of the City Attorney's Office advises that the 
Department was in compliance with the City's 
Charter provisions. 

According to Mr. Tom, the basic scope of the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project was enlarged in September 
of 1997, when the project was extended to Fourth 
Street, the gross square footage increased from 
570,000 square feet to 780,000 square feet, an 
increase of 210,000 square feet, or 36.8 percent and 
the net useable floor area was increased by 60,000 
square feet, from 240,000 square feet to 300,000 
square feet. As a result of this expansion, the 
purchase of additional land was required, the 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



project's construction budget increased from 
$144,000,000 to $191,000,000, land acquisition and 
related costs increased from $71,500,000 to 
$98,300,000 and the project completion date was 
extended by eight months from June of 2002 to 
February of 2003. 

Between May 16, 1997 and July of 1999, an 
approximately 26-month period, the Director of 
Administrative Services approved 11 modifications to 
the Gensler contract, increasing the amount certified 
for this contract by $1,276,326, from the original 
$8,000,000 to $9,276,326. In October of 1999, the 
Department received approval from the Board of 
Supervisors for an amendment to the then existing 
$9,526,326 design agreement with Gensler to 
increase the contract by $4,500,000 to $14,026,326 
(File 99-1712). Mr. Tom advises that this 
amendment was submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors because it resulted in the first time that 
the contract had funds certified in an amount which 
exceeded $10 million and the amendment was for 
greater than $500,000. 

Mr. Tom advises that, since the original May 16, 
1997 architectural, engineering and design contract 
was entered into with Gensler, there have been a 
total of 24 contract modifications. Attachment I 
provided by Mr. Tom, lists the original design 
contract for $10,960,596 and the subsequent 24 
modifications, which have now resulted in a total 
contract amount of $14,089,073. As previously noted, 
the Board of Supervisors approved an increase in the 
contract of up to $14,026,326, which is $62,747 less 
than the $14,089,073 amount currently included in 
the Gensler contract. As stated in Attachment rV, 
provided by Mr. George Wong of the City Attorney's 
Office, in accordance with Charter Section 9.118, 
"the department's execution of modifications do not 
require board approval, provided the total modified 
amount does not exceed $14,526,326." 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Director 
of the Administrative Services to enter into two or 
more additional modifications to the existing 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



$14,089,073 design contract at a total cost not to 
exceed $1,000,000, resulting in a total contract 
amount not to exceed $15,026,326 for Gensler to 
provide 16 additional design items of work that may 
be required from October of 2001 through February 
of 2003, which is anticipated to be the final 
construction phase of the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project. 

The total costs of the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, including design, construction, land 
acquisition and other related costs, were originally 
estimated at $267,000,000 in May of 1997. As shown 
in Attachment II, provided by Mr. Tom, the above- 
noted expansion of 60,000 square feet to the Project 
resulted in revised estimated costs of $343,000,000 
by the Fall of 1999. According to Mr. Tom, the 
current estimated Project costs have increased to 
$358,200,000. Attachment II contains a breakdown 
of (a) the original $267,000,000 Project costs, (b) the 
revised $343,000,000 costs by the Fall of 1999 and 
the current Project estimated costs of $358,200,000. 
Attachment II also contains a brief explanation for 
the major reasons for these increases in the Project 
budget as well as the current status of the Project. 
Mr. Tom states "Currently, project construction is on 
time and within budget. We expect to open for 
operations in the Spring of 2003." 

However, as shown in Attachment II, the current 
estimated $358,200,000 Project cost includes 
$28,700,000 for architecture and construction 
management, which includes (a) $15,026,326 for the 
subject design contract, including the proposed 
request for a $1,000,000 modification, (b) 
approximately $7,800,000 for a separate construction 
management contract, (c) approximately $4,000,000 
for City construction management staff, (d) 
approximately $1,000,000 for a pre-construction 
management contract, (e) $600,000 for a graphics 
contract and (f) approximately $250,000 of other 
miscellaneous costs. Although not stated in 
Attachment II, the Budget Analyst notes that the 
subject request to increase the design contract with 
Gensler by $1,000,000 from $14,026,326 to 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

$15,026,326 results in 41.7 percent of the total $2.4 
million increase in the Architecture/Construction 
Management costs from $26.3 million reported in the 
Fall of 1999 to the currently estimated $28.7 million. 

Budget: Attachment III, provided by Mr. Ray Fong of the 

Department of Public Works (DPW), includes a list of 
the 16 additional design tasks and the estimated 
costs for each of these requested Gensler design 
contract modifications, in a total amount of up to 
$1,000,000 (See Comment No. 7). 

Attachment III, also contains a list of the 
construction costs, totaling an estimated 
$10,085,000, associated with the subject 16 
additional design items (See Comment No. 7). As 
discussed in Attachment III, Mr. Tom estimates that, 
except for the solar panel power system construction 
costs currently estimated at $4,200,000, the 
remaining $5,885,000 ($10,085,000 less $4,200,000) 
of construction costs would be funded with Moscone 
Center Expansion Project construction contingency 
funds. This construction contingency is currently 
budgeted at $16.9 million, or ten percent of the total 
$169 million construction contract (part of the $187 
million costs for Demolition/Construction/Furniture, 
Fixtures and Equipment (FFE)), which is included in 
the total $358,200,000 Project costs, as shown in 
Attachment III. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the Construction 
Contingency costs increased by $4,100,000 from 
$12,800,000 in the FaU of 1999, to $16,900,000 
currently. Yet, in the Fall of 1999, 
Demolition/Construction/FFE was estimated at 
$191,000,000 and is currently estimated at 
$187,000,000, or $4,000,000 less. Therefore, during 
this period, contingency costs increased by 
$4,100,000 or 32 percent while the 
Demolition/Construction/FFE decreased by 2.1 
percent. 

Attachment II also identifies for each of these same 
three time periods (May of 1997, Fall of 1999 and 
currently) the funding sources and amounts to be 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

used to pay for the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project. Attachment II also includes an explanation 
of each of the funding sources to be used to pay for 
the Project. 

Comments: 1. In March of 1996, San Francisco voters authorized 

the issuance of up to $157,500,000 of Lease Revenue 
Bonds for the expansion of the Moscone Center. 
These lease revenue bonds were issued in November 
of 2000. As shown in Attachment II, a total of 
approximately $133 million of these lease revenue 
bond funds will be available for use on the project, 
including approximately $115 million for 
construction costs, and $18 million for land 
acquisition. The balance of $24,500,000 
($157,520,000 less $133,000,000) is for the Lease 
Revenue Bond financing costs, such as capitalized 
interest, capital reserve fund and bond issuance 
costs. 

2. In August of 1996, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized an increase in the Hotel Tax rate from 12 
percent to 14 percent, with the additional revenues 
to be earmarked for the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project. In November of 1998, the San Francisco 
voters reaffirmed the increase of the City's Hotel 
Taxes to 14 percent, with such revenues being 
deposited to the City's General Fund, but not being 
dedicated specifically for the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project. As identified in Attachment II, to 
date, the Board of Supervisors has appropriated 
$109,800,000 of General Fund revenues (Hotel 
Taxes) to the Moscone Center Expansion Project. 
Assuming the total current estimated project costs of 
the Moscone Center Expansion Project of 
$358,200,000, the Project will require a total of 
$149,800,000 of General Fund (Hotel Tax) revenues, 
or an additional appropriation of $40,000,000 
($149,800,000 less $109,800,000) from the City's 
General Fund (Hotel Tax), as descibed in Attachment 
II. Mr. Tom advises that any additional costs beyond 
the currently estimated $358,200,000 for the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project will need to be 
funded with additional General Fund appropriations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. Mr. Tom advises that the proposed resolution 
would provide for two or more modifications to the 
existing agreement because, as shown in Attachment 
III, the DPW Project Manager has identified 16 
possible areas where an increase in design services 
may be needed beween September of 2001 and 
February 2003, during the final construction phase 
of the project. However, Mr. Tom advises that the 
decisions in terms of the need in each area have not 
been finalized. Furthermore, Mr. Fong advises that 
the actual amounts that would be required for each 
design item have not yet been determined. Therefore, 
Mr. Tom advises that, if the Board of Supervisors 
approves the requested resolution to increase the 
design contract by up to $1,000,000, the 
modifications would be made by the Department to 
the existing design contract using funds on an as- 
needed basis. 

4. The Budget Analyst questioned approving a 
request for an additional $1,000,000 of design 
services at this stage of the project, since (1) the 
construction of this project began in August of 2000, 
and now has approximately 17 more months until 
completion, (2) the Financial Director advises that 
final decisions in terms of which specific design 
requirements are needed have not yet been finalized, 
(3) the Project Manager advises that the actual 
amounts required for many of the design activities 
have not been determined and may be less than 
estimated, (4) these 16 design items would result in a 
total estimated additional construction cost of 
$10,085,000, (5) the proposed increased 
authorization of the design contract will result in 
higher estimated design, contingency and ultimately 
Project costs, and (6) any additional costs beyond the 
currently estimated $358,200,000 for the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project will need to be funded with 
additional General Fund appropriations. 

5. Furthermore, the Budget Analyst questioned why 
many of the 16 design items listed in Attachment III 
were not included in the original specifications for 
the architect and design contractors, since the City's 
experienced project management team should have 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



anticipated many of these needs from the outset, 
such as: (1) $30,000 for tenant improvements to 
Howard Street spaces for the City's construction 
offices, (2) $40,000 for development of special 
occupancies and related Fire Department permits, 
especially given that the existing Moscone Center 
has 45 of these pre-approved occupancy plans on file 
with the Fire Department, (3) $50,000 for 
engineering and integration of the City's Reclaimed 
Water plan, since this regulation has not changed 
since the beginning of this project, (4) $75,000 for 
general space planning not previously anticipated, 
(5) $70,000 for consultant travel to manufacturing 
sites outside the Bay Area, (6) $45,000 to select 
equipment for new vendors that will be using the 
building, and (7) $160,000 to exercise an option by 
the City to participate in additional project liability 
insurance, which the City paid in 1997, the first year 
of the contract. 

6. The Department also acknowledges that several of 
the 16 requested design items may not be necessary 
because, for example, the requested $65,000 of 
design services for the integration of solar panel 
power supply, will depend on whether the Public 
Utilities Commission (PUC) can secure an estimated 
$4.2 million of State grants and other funds to 
actually install, construct and maintain the system. 
The requested $50,000 of design services for 
engineering and studies related to the adjoining 888 
Howard Street Hotel may not be necessary because 
the Hotel may not be approved by the City, or ever 
actually constructed. Also, the requested $60,000 of 
design services for studies and solutions for the Fifth 
and Mission Parking Garage expansion will depend 
on whether or not the Garage's expansion involves 
the adjacent Minna Street, which has not yet been 
determined. Furthermore, the requested $60,000 of 
design services to comply with new energy or 
conservation measures that may or may not be 
enacted by the Board of Supervisors or the State and 
therefore may not be necessary. 

7. Based on the numerous questions raised by the 
Budget Analyst regarding the requested $1,000,000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

additional authorization for the Gensler design 
agreement for the new Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, Mr. Jack Moerschbaecher, the Director of 
Convention Facilities sent a memorandum, dated 
August 21, 2001 to the Budget Analyst's Office, 
which is included as Attachment V. As stated in this 
memorandum, of the initial $1,000,000 authorization 
requested, the Department now wishes to delete 
$330,000 (not $425,000 as identified in the Summary 
paragraph on page 4 of the memorandum) of the 
additional requested design funds of $1,000,000. 
Funds for the following six projects totaling $330,000 
(and the related construction costs which could have 
resulted from such design work) would be deleted 
from the subject agreement amendment of 
$1,000,000, resulting in a reduction of $670,000 
($1,000,000 less $330,000) to the subject amendment 
to the agreement: 

Design Construction Work Scope 

Tenant Improvements, Howard Street 
Space Planning, not anticipated 
Curtain Wall consultant 
Equipment for new vendors 
Building Department requirements 
Energy Conservation Measures 
$330,000 $2,535,000 Total 

As noted above, elimination of $330,000 for these six 
design projects would reduce the requested 
$1,000,000 authorization to $670,000. As shown 
above, the ehmination of $330,000 for these six 
design projects would also reduce the associated 
estimated construction costs by $2,535,000, from the 
originally estimated cost of $10,085,000 to 
$7,550,000. 

In addition, Mr. Moerschbaecher advises that 
$150,000 of the requested $1,000,000 increased 
authorization in the design contract and 
approximately $850,000 of the associated 
construction costs would not be charged to the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project. Instead, Mr. 
Moerschbaecher advises that (1) $50,000 for the 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
70 



$30,000 


$360,000 


75,000 


300,000 


75,000 





45,000 


560,000 


45,000 


565,000 


60,000 


750,000 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



design of the Howard Street Hotel project and an 
estimated $100,000 for the related construction costs 
would be charged to the developers of the hotel; (2) 
$40,000 for the design of Fire Department permits 
would be charged to the Convention Facilities 
Operating Funds; and (3) $60,000 for the design of 
the Fifth and Mission Garage and an estimated 
$750,000 for the related construction costs would be 
charged to the Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT). 

Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
proposed resolution be amended to authorize the 
Director of Administrative Services to execute 
amendments to the design agreement with Gensler 
for the new Moscone Center Expansion Project to 
increase the total agreement by $670,000 (not 
$1,000,000) from $14,026,326 to $14,696,326 (not 
$15,026,326). 

8. As discussed in Attachment IV in a memorandum 
from the City Attorney's Office, in accordance with 
Charter Section 9.118, the Department would be 
permitted to modify this design contract with 
Gensler for the new Moscone Center Expansion 
Project for any subsequent modifications not 
exceeding a total of $500,000 without first having to 
obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors. The 
Budget Analyst therefore notes that, if the Board of 
Supervisors authorizes the subject request to 
increase the design agreement with Gensler by 
$670,000, for a total contract amount of up to 
$14,696,326, as is being recommended by the Budget 
Analyst, the Department would actually be 
permitted to continue to increase the contract 
without first obtaining Board of Supervisors 
approval as long as the total subject modifications 
did not exceed $1,170,000 ($670,000 as is now being 
recommended by the Budget Analyst for the subject 
resolution plus an additional $500,000 which would 
not require Board of Supervisors approval), or a total 
design contract amount of up to $15,196,326 
($14,696,326 plus $500,000). Given the magnitude of 
this project, the Budget Analyst therefore 
recommends that, if any additional design contract 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

modifications are required, beyond the total of 
$14,696,326 that is currently being recommended, 
that the Department be requested to first seek 
approval of such modifications from the Board of 
Supervisors. Nothing in the City's Charter would 
prohibit the Department from requesting such prior 
authorization from the Board of Supervisors. 

In response, Mr. Moerschbaecher requests that, in 
order to expedite the completion of the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project, that the Department be 
required to notify the Board of Supervisors (and the 
Budget Analyst's Office) of any modifications to the 
contract beyond the $14,696,326 total contract 
amount recommended, rather than to require 
legislative approval from the Board of Supervisors of 
any modifications beyond the $14,696,326. The 
Budget Analyst considers approval of Mr. 
Moerschbaecher's request to be a policy decision for 
the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to reduce the 
requested increase in the design agreement with 
Gensler for the new Moscone Center Expansion 
Project from $1,000,000 to $670,000, a reduction of 
$330,000, and to authorize the Director of 
Administrative Services to execute such amendments 
up to a total amended contract amount of 
$14,696,326, instead of $15,026,326. The specific 
changes to the subject resolution are as follows: 

• Change line 5 of the Title of the proposed 
resolution from $15,026,326.38 to $14,696,326.38; 

• Change line 14 of the body of the proposed 
resolution "to increase the sum under said 
agreement by $670,000 (not $1,000,000)"; and 

• Change fine 20 of the body of the proposed 
resolution "in an amount not to exceed $670,000 
(not $1,000,000)". 

2. Direct that a memorandum be sent to the 
Department of Administrative Services requesting 
that any additional design contract modifications 
beyond the total of $14,696,326, that is currently 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 26, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



being recommended by the Budget Analyst, be 
submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval 
prior to executing such modifications with the 
contractor. An alternative request by Mr. 
Moerschbacher, that the Department be required to 
simply notify the Board of Supervisors (and the 
Budget Analyst's Office) of any modifications to the 
contract beyond the $14,696,326 total contract 
amount recommended, rather than to obtain 
legislative approval from the Board of Supervisors of 
such modifications, is a policy decision for the Board 
of Supervisors. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



_y»/io/ui iuu 11:37 FAI 415 978 5913 



MOSCONE EIP PROJN PROJ 



@]004 



Attachment I 



MOSCONE CENTEREXPANSION PROJECT 
A&E CONTRACT MODS/ENCUMB~RANCES 



Contract 
Action 

Original Contract 

Mod #1 

Mod #2 

Mod #3 

Mod #4 

Mod #5 

Mod #6 

Mod #7 

Mod #8 

Mod #9 

Modffio 
Mod #11 
Mod #12 
Mod #1 3 
Mod #14 
Mod #15 
Mod #16 
Mod #17 
Mod #18 
Mod #19 
Mod #20 
Mod #21 
Mod #22 
Mod #23 
Mod #24 



I Date 

Description Executed I 
"" I ' I 

.. L /l6/97 i 

Deleted Services !"" 8/13/97] 

•Miscellaneous Changes 10/1 5/96 1 

Mos cone Telecommunications (TEECOM) _8/5/9a' 

JGeneral Scope of Services 1/27/99 

5teel Connection Testing ]_ 2/7/99' 

If EECOM Additional Services"" "" 2/1 S/99J"""" 

"Vehicle Exhaust Model (CEOMATRIX) " X" 3/15/991" " 

; Wind Test Studies (RWDI) " "" ' ' j " 3/22/9 9J~~" 

Basement Mechanical System 5/7/99^_ 

'Structural Peer Review Additional Services 5/6/99] 

_j Worker HealttlEyaluation-Vehjde Exhaust / [_ 7/16/99 _ 

Correction per City Attorney** ~ 1/9/OOf 

iConstruction Administration 1/1 9/00l 

|Mis c. (Art, Life Safety, Cafeteria, Dampers) 2/11 /66 1 

^Misc. Oife Safety, Minna St talkingjjgns", et all" 5/9/ 00 1 
'Deleted Services ' '" 6/l4/00i 

Misc. (additional'design) " :_' 6/157ooT~ 

Construction Administration (miscadditional) j_ 12/l1/00'_ 
'Temp. Crane Load calculations j_ 2/6 /6 fl" 

Construction Administratio n (ad ditional) 3/6/0 1j_ 

IConstruction Administration (additional) 3/23/01 1 

Construc tion Administration (Kitchen/A V) 4/4/01 ! 

jConsL'Admin.'(CADD,F]corBox,Ayspec) i f X A J9.h 

Const Admin. {Curuin Wall, AV spec) I j^V ^ 

I Total 



Amount 



16,960,596.00 j 

(334,683.62) ' 

16,863.00 ' 

1,098,000.00 i 

""335,500-00" 

"~" " 62,5 00.00 "[ 

1 5,586.00 ', 

11 ,550.0 0T 

4,1 83.00 

65,175.00 | 

1,653.00 | 

(2,960,596100)' 

3,833,596.00 ' 

499,461.00 '. 

" 424,980.00 ' 

(24J_,6_75.00), 

£2,822.25 J 

'38,094.00 '. 

3JB50.O0 j 

"7,065.00 

4,888.00 i 

18,800.00 ' 

_34,940.00 ! 

135,925.00 ! 



A&Emodsum1 1 
8/16/01 

Aggregate Certified 

Value ' Value* (FAMlS) 



10^960,596.00 ! 
10,625,912.38 ' 
10,625,912.38 ' 
10,642,775.38 ' 
11,740,775.38 ! 
12,076,275.38 , 
V2,"l38,775.38_ 
12,154,3 61.38 i 
"12,165,911.38 I 
12,170,094.38 ~ 
12,235,269.38 
12,236,922.38 ' 
9,276,326.38 
13,109,922.38 ' 
13,609,383.38 ' 
14,034,363-38 
13,792,688.38 : 
13,845,510.63 ' 
13,883,604.63 '■ 
13,887,454^63 I 
1 3,894,51 9.63 
13,89"9 ,407.63 : 
13,918,207.63 
13,953,147.63 • 
14,089,072-63 ' 



8,000,000.00 
7,665,316.36 
7,665,316.38 
7,682,179.36 
8,780,179.38 
9,115,679.38 
9,178,179.38 
9,193,765.38 
9,205,315.38 
' 9,209,498.38 
9,274,673.38 
9,276,326.38 
9,276,326.38 
13,109,922.38 
13,609,383.38 
14,034,363-38 
13,792,688.38 
13,845,510.63 
13,883,604.63 
13,887,454.63 
13,894,519.63 
13,899,407.63 
13,91B,207.63 
13,953,147.63 
14,089,072.63 



14,089, 072.631 



* Due to limited funds a partial certification by the Controller of the agreed to amount was processed in June 1997. The 
S8, 000,000 amount was sufficient for the architectural team to completejhe design phase of the work (original building 
scope). . 

** In October 1 999, th e City Attorney determined that the contract agreement had to be the same as the value certified by 
the Controller. A deductive modification was processed (mod #12) to bring the contract into balance with the 
encumbrance certified in FAMIS. 



74 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment II 
^age 1 ot 2 



Lg] 002 




San Francisco Convention Facilities 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 

Jack Moerschbaecher 
Director 

MEMORANDUM 

DT: Aug. 16,2001 

TO: Debra Newman ^ 

FM: Leonard Tom * 

RE: MCEP Design Contract Authorization Increase Aug. 2001 

Per your request, following is a summary of the total project budget and funding sources for May 1 997 , FalM 999 
and June 2001 . May 1997 represents the original scope of the Project. Fall 1999 represents the expanded 
scope of the Project (extension to Fourth Street). June 2001 is the current total budget for the project. 



Category 

Demolition/Construction/FFE 

Construction Contingency 

Offsite infrastructure 

Architecture/Construction Management 

Consultants 

City Depts., Permits, Fees, Art Projects 

Subtotal 

Land Acquisition & Related Costs 

Total Project Cost 



May 1997 

$144.0 million 
S 14.4 million 
$ 3.4 million 
$ 22.2 million 
$ 1 .2 million 
S 10.3 million 



$195.5 million 



Fall 1999 

$191.0 million 
$ 12.8 million 
$ 2.8 million 
$ 26.3 million 
$ 0.7 million 
$ 11.1 million 

$244.7 million 



$ 71 .5 million $ 98.3 million 

$267.0 million $343.0 million 



June 2001 

$187.0 million 
$ 16.9 million 
$ 3.8 million 
$ 28.7 million 
$ 0.3 million 
S 11.0 million 

S247.7 million 

$110.5 million 

$358.2 million 



Funding Sources 

Revenue Bonds (Construction) 

Revenue Bonds (Land Acquisition) 

Hotel Tax Revenue (Land Acquisition) 

Hotel Tax Revenue 

Convention Facilities Fund Balance 

Rents/misc/other 

Total 



$115.0 million 
$ - 

$ 71.5 million 
$ 67.0 million 
$ 13.5 million 
$ - 

$267.0 million 



$115.0 million 
S - 

$ 98.3 million 
$ 81.3 million 
$ 48.4 million 



$343.0 million 



$115.0 million 
% 18.0 million 
$ 92.5 million 
$ 57.3 million 
$ 58.6 million 
$ 16.8 million 

S358.2 million 



The major cause of the increase between May 1997 and Fall 1999 was the change in scope of the Project 
(extension to Fourth Street). The gross square footage of the building increased by 37%. Project duration was 
extended by more than a year. Land acquisition costs were estimated to increase by about $27 million dollars. 
The eminent domain lawsuits had not yet gone to trial. The design and construction management budget had to 
be increased to accommodate the increased building scope and extended duration (original completion was June 
2002) of the Project. The construction contingency budget and other minor items were reduced to keep the total 
project budget within the reasonably expected availability of funding for the Project 

Between Fall 1999 and June 2001, the Project Budget increased by a net of $15.2 million. The land acquisition 
budget was increased by $122 million (two of three lawsuits have been resolved). The Construction contract 
actually came in lower than estimated. That allowed restoration of the construction contingency to 10% and 
partial restoration of other parts of the Project budget. 

99 Grove Street, #204, San FraDCisco, CA 94102 ~ Telephone (415) 554-6178 Fax (415) 978-5913 



75 



mu u.o/ rAA 4io «78 0813 moscone exp projn proj Attachment II ®003 

Page 2 of 2" 



Funding sources have been increased as the scope and budget for the Project has changed. The primary 
sources, initially, were net bond proceeds and the Hotel Tax. By Fall 1999, Convention Facilities Fund Balance 
and Rents/Misc/Other had become more prominent. Convention Facilities Fund Balance are revenues made 
available to the Project from previously allocated CFM project reserves or operating surpluses from prior fiscal 
years. "Rents" come from proceeds collected from properties taken by eminent domain for the Project. The 
buildings were occupied for approximately six months prior to their demolition under City "ownership." "Other" 
includes a $14.9 million release of the Capital Reserve Fund previously refunded Moscone Revenue Bonds in 
1994. The release was made possible by substitution of a surety bond for the capital reserve. Presently, the 
increased alternate sources have allowed the need for Hotel Tax to be reduced from a high of $179.6 million in 
Fall 1999 to $149.8 million currently. 

The Revenue Bond funding available has always been shown in terms of net proceeds, after capitalized interest, 
capital reserve and bond issuance costs are taken off the top of the $157.5 million authorization level. Original 
Project planning assumed Bond issuance in 1997 with $42.5 million of financing costs, yielding $115 million in net 
proceeds. Working with the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the project team delayed issuance until November 
2000. This reduced the financing cost by $18 million and made that amount available for "hard costs" of the 
Project. 

As of July 2001, the City has appropriated approximately $318 million in total fund sources for MCEP (Hotel Tax 
$109.8 M, Revenue Bonds $133 M (net), CFM Fund Balance $58.7 M, and Other $16.8 M). We currently project 
that an additional $40 million in Hotel Tax Funds will be needed In FY 02/03 to complete the Project. 

Currently, project construction is on time and within budget The General Contractor was given Notice-To- 
Proceed in August 2000. We expect to open for operations in the Spring of 2003. 



AE Fees/AE Bd Resolution 01 Analyst memo 2 



76 



JLUOUUISC E«i.r 



City and County of San Francisco 




Page 1 of 4 
Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Edwin M. Lee, DPWbinaor 
Ray Fong, Project Manager 

Memorandum revised August 15, 2001 

To: Jack Moerschbaecher 

From: Ray Fong 

Subj: Architect Work Scope Budget 

The following items listed below are anticipated additional architectural contract modification 
work scopes that may be required to complete construction of the project 



Budgets 


Work Scope 


Design 
Budget 


Construction 
Budget 




65,000 


4,200,000 


Integration of solar panel power supply. 


30,000 


360,000 


Tenant improvement to Howard Street spaces for construction offices. 


50,000 


100,000 


Engineering and studies and for the adjoining 888 Howard Street Hotel. 


40,000 





Development of special occupancies and related Fire Department 
permits. 


50,000 


750,000 


Engineering and integration of the City's Reclaimed Water plan. 


75,000 


300,000 


Space planning for accommodation to uses not previously anticipated. 


60,000 


750,000 


Studies and solutions for the Fifth and Mission Parking Garage 
expansion. 


50,000 | 


Upgrading of audio and visual equipment 


55,000 


250,000 


Specialized engineering for vibratory membrane dynamic floor loading 
responses. 


75,000 





Specialty curtain wall consultant field service. 


70,000 





Consultant travel to manufacturing sites outside the Bay Area to insure 
proper manufacture, fabrication, quality control or testing of building 
components. 


45,000 


560,000 


Select equipment for new vendors that will be using the new building. 


70,000 


875,000 


Review and approve substitutions for products or materials no longer 
available or which incorporate upgrades in technology, improves 
materials, products or systems. 


45,000 


565,000 


Provide additional services to comply with special building occupancy 
mandated by the Building Department or other approval agency. 


60,000 I 750,000 


Provide services to comply with new energy or conservation measures 
that may be enacted. 


160,000 


Exercise option by City to participate in cost of project insurance. 


1,000,000 | 10,085,000 


Total 



We request that you seek authority frcm the BOS to modify the contract by $1 million. 

All construction cost shown above, except the solar panel power system, will be funded by the 
MCEP project construction contingency and will not require additional funding to execute. 
Construction cost for the solar power system will be funded by the Public Utilities Commission 
(PUC) dependent upon issuance of bonds for solar energy facilities. 

Howard and fifth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 - Telephone (415) 978-5901 Fax (415) 267-6480 



77 



City and County of San Francisco 




Page 2 of 5 
Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Edwin Lee, DPW Direaor 

Ray Fong, Project Manager 



To: 



August 14, 2002 

Leonard Tom 
Financial Manager 



From: Ray Fong 

Project Manager 

Re: Moscone Center Expansion Project 
Architect Work Scope Details 

Please find described below details of the Architect's work scope for Board Resolution August 2001 . 

1 . Integration of solar panel power supply: A preliminary proposal to add solar panels to the roof of 
MCEP has been studied by the Powerlight Corporation of Berkeley, CA. Electrical power generated 
by the solar panels could be used within the building or returned to PG&E for a credit. If the 
decision were made to add solar panels to MCEP in order to reduce energy consumption it would 
be necessary for the project Architects to provide design services for conduit routing from the roof 
to an equipment monitoring and control room in the basement. The re-design of the area where 
the control room is located, the control room design and the conduit routing would be an 
additional cost. 

2. Tenant Improvement to Howard Street spaces for construction offices: The construction 
management and inspection staff for the MCEP is currently located in temporary construction 
trailers located along Howard Street. During the year 2002, these trailers will have to be removed 
to complete construction on MCEP including repaving Howard Street between Fourth and Fifth 
Street. Since the project will not be finished when this paving occurs it will be necessary to 
relocate the 1 5 person staff to MCEP, leased office space or City owned office space. In any event 
it will be additional services to design such spaces for management staff to use until project 
completion in the spring of 2003. 

3. Engineering studies for the adjoining 888 Howard Street Hotel: A new hotel is in the planning 
stages for adjacent property to the MCEP site. Additional services will be necessary to find 
solutions for joint property line issues arising from the new hotel. Such services would study hotel 
foundations deeper than the MCEP foundations, waterproofing, underpinning, foundation wall 
design, dewatering and shoring as they impact the MCEP construction. 

4. Special occupancy and related Fire Department permits: These permits for certain types of usage 
are pre-approved by the Fire Department, and are planned and created by the Architect with the 
assistance of the convention facility's staff. Work involves establishing multiple layouts of planned 
activities for differing anticipated configurations of occupants using the facility. For instance, the 
existing Moscone Center has 45 of these pre-approved occupancy plans on file with the Fire 
Department. This new facility is estimated to require 18 pre-approved plans to be on file. If the 
client required new configurations of use, additional services would be necessary from the 
Architect. 



Construction Project Trailers, 5* and Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 978-5901 (415) 267-6480 fax 

78 



' ,. * nn . Pa^e 3 of 4 

August 14, 2001 & 

Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Architect Work Scope Details 

Page 2 

5. Engineering and integration of the City's Reclaimed Water plan: At some future date in may be 
required to add additional plumbing to the building to implement the City's reclaimed water plan. 
This would be additional design work for the Architects, since the project is in construction and the 
reclaimed water plan was not required of this project during the design phase. 

6. Space planning for accommodation to uses not previously anticipated: Any space planning and 
interior design that might be requested by SF Convention Facilities that is not already incorporated 
in the plans will be additional services for the Architects. A new business center is desired to 
provide amenities for convention users such as: a copy center, packaging and mail center, and 
electronic messaging services. 

7. Studies and solutions for the Fifth and Mission parking garage expansion: The Department o { 
Parking and Traffic is currently studying the possible expansion of the Fifth and Mission garage 
either by adding vertically or horizontally onto Minna Street. If the Minna Street expansion were 
pursued, additional work would be required by the MCEP Architects to study and provide design 
services to modify the MCEP as necessary to accommodate the new garage expansion. This could 
include additional exiting studies, fire ratings of walls, deep excavations, foundation wall design, 
dewatering, and shoring design. 

8. Upgrading audio and visual equipment: audio and visual equipment is something that is constantly 
being improved. Some re-design and upgrades of equipment, wiring, and systems has already 
occurred and it is likely more improvements will occur prior to construction completion in the 
spring of 2003. 

9. Specialized engineering for vibratory membrane dynamic floor loading responses: The dynamic 
analysis for a flexible floor is not within the scope of the Architect's normal services. Dynamic 
floor responses are a result of special loading criteria, which can come from activities such as: 
march rrig"bands, group aerobic exercises, rock concerts, and tea dancing. All of these activities 
generate a rhythmic pattern, which can harmonically intensify in amplitude to generate wave 
patterns in the floor membrane. An expert is needed to study and report on the flexibility of our 
floors in reaction to dynamic wave responses, and give criteria to avoid these loadings or 
recommend engineering criteria to change the floor response spectrum. 

1 0. Specialty curtain wall consultant field service. A large portion of the Fourth and Fifth Street facades 
are made of an aluminum and glass building enclosure system commonly known as a curtain wall 
because it supports only its own weight and is not part of the building structural system. Each 
building that uses such a system is using standard manufactured components that are put together 
in a unique way to provide the exterior weather enclosure for the building. Full size mock-ups are 
constructed to test water infiltration, temperature expansion and contraction, wind resistance, etc. 
This curtain wall system will be one of the most important component systems in the building. To 
ensure proper installation that will meet design requirements, code requirements, and 
improvements resulting from the mock up testing it may be necessary to have the actual 
construction reviewed as it progresses by an expert curtain wall consultant that has been involved 
with all phases of the project. Such expert on site inspection would be additional service by the 
MCEP Architects. 

1 1 . Consultant travel to manufacturing sites outside the Bay Area: Sometimes it is necessary for local 
design consultants to travel outside the Bay area to insure proper manufacture, fabrication, quality 
control or testing of building components. There are thousands of pieces of equipment, motors, 
fans, electrical components, lighting, audio visual systems, fire protection, fire alarm systems, etc. 
which in the best interest of finishing the project on time without last minute problems require 
inspection or observation at the manufacturing plant rather than shipping components to the job 

79 



August 14, 2001 

Moscone Center Expansion Project 
Architect Work Scope Details 
Page 3 

site for testing. These inspection or commissioning trips would be additional services for the MCEP 
design consultants. Such travel may be required to Stockton, CA; Fresno, CA; Phoenix, AZ; 
Fullerton, CA; Wausau, MN; Scofield, MN; and Mountain Top, PA. 

1 2. Select equipment for new vendors: SF Convention Facilities is in the process of hiring vendors to 
operate or maintain planned activities for MCEP. Those vendors who were not known during the 
design phase may and usually do request or require equipment or construction changes to 
accommodate their operations. Such changes would be additional services for the MCEP design 
team. 

1 3. Review and approve substitutions for the project: Under the Architects contract they perform one 
review of submittals for materials and products that the Architects designed and the client 
approved. Additional services would be required for (1) client requested changes to materials and 
products, (2) contractor requested changes when the specified item is still available, and (3) 
upgrade in technology, improvement in materials, products or systems if the specified system is still 
available and was previously approved by the City. 

14. Provide additional services to comply with special Building Department or other approval agency: 
Although every effort is made during the planning, design and construction phases to meet or 
exceed the requirements of all the approval agencies, sometimes new requirements or 
interpretations based on the actual construction become apparent to the approving agencies. Life 
safety and disabled access issues are two areas that require frequent last minute adjustment in order 
to obtain building occupancy permits or final approvals. The addition of these late changes, that 
could not have been anticipated during the design phase and after numerous previous approvals by 
the same authorities, would be additional services for the MCEP design consultants. Another 
example.is the recent change by the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board of its latest standards on 
emissions for emergency generators that mandated the project change the specified generators and 
re-select another generator that met the new regulations. 

15. Provide services to comply with new energy or conservation measures that may be enacted: Any 
City, State or Federal energy or conservation measures that are not already part of the MCEP design 
will require re-design work to accommodate those new measures. Construction is beyond 25% 
complete and any such revision might require demolition of completed construction and revision 
of plans and specifications to incorporate the new systems. Energy and conservation measures 
usually involve the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and electrical systems. Even a minor 
change may require extensive additional design work. 

1 6. Exercise option by City to participate in cost of project insurance: The City instituted and has the 
option of raising the insurance coverage from the non-project specific coverage of $6 million to the 
project specific coverage of $10 million. This was recommended by the City Attorney to provide 
the City with the best protection at minimal cost. 






80 



City and County of San Francisco 

<^°h*?x Louise H. Renne 
City Attorney 




TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 
RE: 



Attachment IV 

Office of the City Attorney 

George K. Wong 
Deputy City Attorney 

Direct Dial: (415)554-3942 

E-Mail: george_wong@d.sf.ca.us 



MEMORANDUM 
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 

DEBRA NEWMAN i 

Budget Analyst's Office ) 

GEORGE K.WONG f 1 ^ 
Deputy City Attorney 

August 16,2001 

Modification of Contract with Gensler/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi,. JV 



In October, 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved a modified contract with 
Gensler/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi, TV for architectural services in the amount of 
$14,026,326. Since that date, the Department of Public Works has modified the contract so that 
it now amounts to $14,089,073, an amount slightly in excess of the board-approved amount. The 
Department of Public Works is seeking a board resolution increasing the original approved 
amount of $14,026,326 by $1 million. 

Charter Section 9.1 18, amongst other things, requires board approval of non-construction 
contracts of $10 million or more, and of modifications of such contracts exceeding $500,000. 
The department's execution of modifications do not require board approval, provided the total 
modified amount does not exceed $14,526,326 ($14,026,326 + $500,000). Therefore, 
modifications resulting in the present modified contract amount of $14,089,073 did not require 
board approval. However, at this time the department wishes to modify the contract by an 
additional amount of $1 million. This will require board approval by resolution. 



Fox Plaza -1390 Market Street, Suite 418 • San Francisco, California 94 102-5408 
Reception: (415)554-4283 • Facsimile: (415)255-0733 

81 



Attachment V 
Page 1 of 4 



MEMORANDUM 

August 21, 2001 

TO: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

Debra Newman, Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Jack Moerschbaecher, Director of Convention Facilities 

SUBJECT: Item 10 - File 01-1445, Finance Committee Meeting of August 22, 2001 

The purpose of this memo is to clarify some of the information provided to you in the 
preparation of your report regarding this item which requests authorization to increase the 
design agreement for the Moscone Center Expansion project by $1 million. Please be 
aware that based on your review of the item, and based on the fact that we feel additional 
information is needed, we have asked that this item be continued to the meeting of 
September 26, 2001. This will give you a better opportunity to review the additional 
information we will provide. 

It is unfortunate that you received what was essentially supposed to be an internal memo 
from the DPW Project Manager regarding the background for the request for $1 million. 
I did not have a chance to review the information you were provided, or to comment 
more fully on it. This memo serves that purpose. 

In regard to the construction amounts related to that memo, which total $10+ million, 
please be aware that those amounts were meant to be the upper limits for what we felt 
additional construction costs would be. It was not, and is not, our intent to request an 
additional $10+ million in General Fund monies for these items. Where appropriate, we 
would look for alternative sources of funding, reduce the scope of work to be done, and 
generally do our best to mitigate, to the extent possible, the impact on the General Fund. 

As regards to the individual items, I've taken a further look at each, and this memo is 
meant to provide you with additional information and, in some cases, withdraw the 
requested items. 

Solar Power Supply - $65.000 design: $4.200.000 construction 
We feel it is prudent to design the improvements needed to allow for some form of 
alternative energy production to be installed at the Moscone Expansion site. Whether this 
is photovoltaic, or some other form of solar energy production remains to be seen, but it 
will cost us much less in the long run to ensure that the building that we construct today 
doesn't require massive modifications at the time we install the alternative energy 
system. Thus, we feel the design funds are needed at this time. In terms of the 
construction cost, in the event that alternative funds such as state, federal or utility 
company grants are not available, we would use the annual allocation of Hotel Tax 
revenues (a non-General Fund source) to pay the construction costs of this project. The 
General Fund would not be impacted. Additionally, please understand that the $4.2 



82 



Attachment V 
Page 2 of 4 



million estimate for construction costs was derived from a conversation that the DPW 
Project Manager had with staff from the PUC. They had discussed this project with one 
vendor, a vendor who provides photovoltaic systems, the most expensive kind of systems 
on the market at this time. We are confident that in the event we go forward with this 
project, the bid process will result in a greatly reduced cost for the alternative energy 
system. 

Tenant Improvement Howard Street - $30,000 design: $360,000 construction 
We are withdrawing this request. 

Howard Street Hotel - S50.000 design: SI 00.000 construction 

While it is true that this building has not been officially approved, nonetheless, we have 
assured the Planning Commission that we will cooperate with any and all developers 
interested in developing this site. We would charge the developers the full cost of any 
design or construction changes needed to accommodate the hotel. However, we do need 
the authorization to spend the design funds prior to being able to charge the developers. 
Construction costs would be borne completely by the developer at the time any 
modifications to our building are needed. 

Fire Department Permits - S40.000 design 

This item was never intended to be a part of the original design and construction project, 
so the DPW Project Manager didn't miss this. Rather, this was more an oversight of the 
Convention Facilities Office. The project is responsible for building the convention 
center, not determining how the building is operated when events are booked. Because 
we now have some 30 events already booked, we are in a position to provide the Fire 
Department with more detailed plans regarding the actual uses of the facility. We need 
the architects to develop those plans. However, since this is an operational matter, the 
project should not pay this cost. We would use Convention Facilities Operating Funds (a 
non-General Fund source) to pay these costs. 

Reclaimed Water Plan - S50.000 design: S750.000 construction 

This item was not included by the DPW Project Manager in the design contract although 
the regulation has been in effect since the beginning of the project. We still feel it is 
prudent to design the improvements necessary to fully implement the plan in the event 
the City requires us to do so. 

Space Planning - $75.000 design: $300.000 construction 
We withdraw this request. 

Fifth and Mission Garage - $60,000 design: $750.000 construction 
This request is similar to the request made for the hotel project. While a specific plan for 
the expansion of the garage has not come forward, we think it would be in the best 
financial interests of the City to have our architects talk with DPT early so that designers 
of the garage expansion do not develop plans which would be expensive to implement. 
We feel such an early discussion would, in the long term, act to reduce the cost of the 



83 



Attachment V 
Page 3 of 4 



garage expansion. It would be our intention to charge DPT for any of the costs 
associated with this item so that the General Fund is not impacted. 

Audio-Visual Equipment - $50,000 design; S625.000 construction 
Audio-visual equipment is, in many ways, subject to the same kind of technological 
improvements as computer equipment. Because of that, between now and the time the 
building opens, we will be looking at more advanced equipment than is presently 
available. In some cases, the more advanced equipment may require redesign of some of 
the spaces, but more likely a redesign of some of the support facilities. The design funds 
allow us to better react to changes in technology. 

Floor Loading - $55.000 design: S250.000 construction 

As we have booked events into the facility, we are finding that the uses of the facility are 
different than we found when we did focused interviews with potential clients at the time 
we were deteirnining if we needed an expansion or not. Originally, we were led to 
believe that clients would use the first floor for exhibit space and the two upper floors for 
meetings rooms. The events being booked into the facility are, more and more, using the 
second floor for exhibit space as well. While we designed the floor loading to 
accommodate this, we do have concerns about how the placement of heavy equipment 
(which is prevalent in some shows), will affect the vibrations in the floor. Being 
proactive in this analysis will prevent us from experiencing problems that have occurred 
in other multi-level convention centers. 

Curtain Wall Consultant- $75.000 design 
We withdraw this request. 

Consultant Travel - $70.000 design 

While I fully recognize the issues surrounding travel, I would like to make a case for this. 
We have to be able to ensure that the materials that are to be used in the facility adhere to 
strict quality controls. Having our architectural consultants on-site at the manufacturer's 
location from time to time will help us prevent problems that would be far more costly in 
the long term. We didn't know until August, 2000 who the construction contractor would 
be. Thus, at the time the design contracts were being let, we didn't know the locations 
where subcontractors would be producing and fabricating the materials. 

Equipment for New Vendors - $45.000 design; $560.000 construction 
We withdraw this request. 

Review and Approve Substitutions - $70.000 design; $875.000 construction 
This item essentially is a request to move $70,000 of the funds presently in the overall 
project contingency into a contingency fund for the architectural services. In all honesty, 
we do not know what changes might be requested by the construction contractor, but we 
need to ensure that whatever changes are requested are reviewed quickly and 
professionally to ensure they do not impact the integrity of the building and that we open 
on time. This contingency fund does just that. 



84 



Attachment V 
Page 4 of 4 



Building Department Requirements - $45,000 design; $565,000 construction 
We withdraw this item. See Note 1 . 

Energy Conservation Measures - S60.000 design: S750.000 construction 
We withdraw this item. See Note 1 . 

Project Insurance - SI 60.000 design 

The omission of this item from the design contract amount was just that, an omission. 
This was an option in the original architectural contract. The contract called for $10 
million in Errors and Omissions insurance. While individual members of the Joint 
Venture architectural team were able to provide that level of insurance, the Joint Venture 
team itself was not able to provide that level of insurance without the assistance of the 
City. It is that assistance which is the reason for this request. 

Note 1 

While we agree that these items should be withdrawn, we still would like to reserve the 
right to come back at some point in time in the future. We all know that the permitting 
agencies of the City have, in the past, made substantial changes to buildings before 
issuing a certificate of occupancy. 

Summary 

To summarize this memo, we agree that $425,000 will be withdrawn from this request. 
We feel that $1 10,000 should be approved and later charged to other projects as needed 
(hotel, garage). We will use $40,000 in alternative funding sources for one of the items 
and that $425,000 should be approved for the items shown above. 

Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact me at 554-6178. 



85 



23 




City Hall 

Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 

San Francisco 94102-4689 

Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



/ei NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 

.FINANCE COMMITTEE 
£AN FRANCISCO^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meeting of the Finance Committee scheduled for 
Wednesday, October 3, 2001 , at 10:00 a.m., at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 
263, City Hall, San Francisco, California, has been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



DOCUMENTS D EPT 

OCT - ( 200! 

p UBUC UBRARy 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 

S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL. ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-4689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



41 Library 

100 Larkin Street Govt Information Center 







City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, October 10, 2001 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m. 

011698 [First Quarter Revenue Figures] 
Supervisors Leno, Maxwell 

Hearing asking the Controller to brief the Finance Committee on first quarter revenue figures and to consider 
the impact of our slowing economy and the events of September 1 1th on our local economy. 
9/24/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsors request this item be considered at the October 3, 2001 meeting. 
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; 
John Marks, Convention and Visitors Bureau; Mike Casey, Hotel and Restaurant Workers (SE1U, Local 2); 
John Martin, Director, San Francisco International Airport; Jack Moershbaecher, Moscone Convention 
Cener; Kathleen Harrington, Golden Gate Restaurant Association; Chris Kraus, PKF Consulting; Captain 
John Goldberg, Police Department, Fiscal Division; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Mario Trevino, 
Chief, Fire Department; Dr. Mitch Katz, Department of Public Health; Julie Brennan, Department of Human 
Services, Budget Office; Jerry Hoya, Recreation and Park Department; Ed Lee, Director of Public Works; 
Bruce Windrem; Supervisor Ammiano. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:5-1 PM on i 3 OJ 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 10, 2001 



011642 [Pedestrian Safety and Street Resurfacing General Obligation Bonds] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Sandoval, Maxwell 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the financing of street 
resurfacing, curb ramp construction, sidewalk improvement and street structure improvement projects and all 
other aspects necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of $150,000,000 is 
and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County and will 
require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee.) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

10/9/01, SUBSTITUTED. President Ammiano submitted a substitute resolution bearing new title. 

10/9/01, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Har\'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Maria Lombardo, San 

Francisco County Transportation Authority; Theresa Burke, Department of Public Works; Nick Carr, 

Department of Parking and Traffic, Liveable Streets Corridor Project; Emily Drennen, Bicycle Advisory 

Committee; Walter Parks, Mayor's Office on Disability; Bob Planthold, Co-Chair, Pedestrian Safety and 

Street Resurfacing Working Group; John Winston, Bicycle Coalition; John Bardis; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's 

Budget Office; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



01 1389 [Management Agreement for the North Beach and Vallejo Street Garages] 

Resolution approving the award of the Management Agreement for the North Beach Garage and the Vallejo 
Street Garage to Pacific Park Management Incorporated. (Parking and Traffic Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/30/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 

8/28/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Speakers: None. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011566 [Sewer Emergency] 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds in the amount of $272,846 to construct a new sewer on 
Tennessee Street from Cesar Chavez Street to midway toward 26th Street and on Cesar Chavez Street from 3rd 
Street to Tennessee Street. (Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/13/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Christine Tang, Public Utilities Commission; 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 2:55 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 10, 2001 



011664 [Acquisition - Noise Easements] 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of seventy (70) noise easements for sixty nine (69) properties in South 
San Francisco and one (1) in the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo as part of the San Francisco 
Airport's Noise Insulation Program. (Real Estate Department) 
9/18/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst;; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011669 [Public Utilities Commission Land Exchange] 

Resolution approving an exchange of pipeline easement land with Hayward-Oliver Owners, LLC related to 
property located in the City of Hayward, County of Alameda, State of California, and authorizing the quitclaim 
of the interest of the City and County of San Francisco in a strip of land 20 feet wide located along the westerly 
side of an existing easement area, in exchange for a grant of easement rights in a similar strip of land 20 feet 
wide located along the easterly side of the existing easement area plus certain additional surface use rights to 
City, and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate Department) 
9/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald , Director of Property. Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011649 [Agreement to convey former Central Freeway Parcels to Redevelopment Agency] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving and authorizing an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of 
San Francisco for the sale and grant of an option to purchase certain real property formerly occupied by the 
Central Freeway for the purpose of affordable housing; adopting findmgs pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act; adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the City's general plan and 
eight priority policies of City Planning Code section 101.1; and authorizing the Director of Property to execute 
documents and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. (Mayor) 
9/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Richard Hillis, Acting Director, Mayor's 
Office of Economic Development; Olsen Lee, Housing Manager. Redevelopment Agency; Michael Cohen, 
Deputy City Attorney; Mr. Moscovitch, Director, Transportation Authority; Patricia Walkup. Hayes Valley; 
Robin Levitt, Citizens Advisory Committee for Central Freeway Project; George R. Williams. San Francisco 
Organizing Project; Mark Solomon. 

Amended on page 3, line 7, after "Project, " by adding "including the costs of certain ancillary transportation 
improvements contemplated in Proposition I (the 'Ancillary Improvements'). " Further amended on page 4, 
line 13, by adding "FURTHER RESOLVED, That the identification of an allocation of revenues for the 
Ancillary Improvements shall proceed according to Section 3(c) of Proposition I. " 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 2:55 I'M on .) >' 04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 10, 2001 



011650 [Agreement to sell and exchange former Centeral Freeway parcels] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving and authorizing agreements for the sale at fair market value and for the exchange of 
certain real property formerly occupied by the Central Freeway; adopting findings pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act; adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the City's general plan and 
eight priority policies of City Planning Code section 101.1; and authorizing the Director of Property to execute 
documents and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. (Mayor) 
9/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Richard Hillis, Acting Director, Mayor's 
Office of Economic Development; Olsen Lee, Housing Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Michael Cohen, 
Deputy City Attorney; Mr. Moscovitch, Director, Transportation Authority; Patricia Walkup, Hayes Valley; 
Robin Levitt, Citizens Advisory Committee for Central Freeway Project; George R. Williams, San Francisco 
Organizing Project; Mark Solomon. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011651 [Development strategy and issuance of RFPs] 
Mayor 

Resolution endorsing the strategy for development of certain real property formerly occupied by the Central 

Freeway and the issuance of requests for proposals. (Mayor) 

9/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Har\>ey Rose. Budget Analyst; Richard Hillis. Acting Director, Mayor's 

Office of Economic Development; Olsen Lee, Housing Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Michael Cohen, 

Deputy City Attorney; Mr. Moscovitch, Director, Transportation Authority; Patricia Walkup, Hayes Valley; 

Robin Levitt, Citizens Advisory Committee for Central Freeway Project; George R. Williams, San Francisco 

Organizing Project; Mark Solomon. 

Amended on page 3 as follows: 

On line 4, after "form, " by adding "including a requirement to construct a minimum of 1 5 percent of the 

housing units as affordable housing. " 

On line 6, after "process, " by adding "which includes a requirement to construct a minimum of 1 5 percent of 

the housing units as affordable housing. " 

On line 12, after "Strategy, " by adding "conditioned on the development of a transportation element prepared 

in conjunction with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which transportation element shall be 

an element of the development strategy. " 

On line 15, after "Board, " by adding "including a requirement to construct a minimum of 1 5 percent of the 

housing units as affordable housing, or to otherwise dispose of the parcels through a bid process which 

includes a requirement to construct a minimum of 1 5 percent of the housing units as affordable housing, 

following the completion of the Department of City Planning's Better Neighborhood 2002 Program; and, be it 

"FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Mayor's Office of Economic Development, the Department of Real 
Estate and the Department of Public Works shall submit bi-annually to the Board of Supervisors a report 
describing (i) the current status of the Octavia Boulevard Project, (ii) the estimated and actual proceeds to the 
City from the sale of the 23 Central Freeway land parcels and the 14 parking leases, and (Hi) the total 
estimated and actual Octavia Boulevard Project costs. " 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 2:55 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 10, 2001 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Primed at 2:55 PM on 3/3/04 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



.25 



>/*( 




CITY AND COUNTY [Q jEm StLlSI OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JBOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

v 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



October 4, 2001 

TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: Qctober 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-1698 

1. This is a hearing requesting the Controller to provide the Finance Committee 
with a briefing on first quarter revenue figures and to consider the impact of a 
slowing economy and the events of September 11, 2001 on the local economy. 

2. As of the writing of this report, the Controller's Office has not completed its 
review of first quarter revenues and the potential effect on the City budget. 
According to Mr. Matthew Hymel, Chief Assistant Controller, the Controller will 
report directly to the Finance Committee on this matter at the Committee's meeting 
of October 10, 2001. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 1 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 01-1642 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 
Mayor's Office of Disability 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public 
interest and necessity demand the financing of street 
resurfacing, curb ramp construction, sidewalk 
improvement and street structure improvement projects 
and all other aspects necessary or convenient for the 
foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of 
$150,000,000 is and will be too great to be paid out of the 
ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and 
County and will require the incurring of a bonded 
indebtedness; finding the proposed project is in 
conformity with the priority policies of Planning Code 
Section 101.1(b) and with the General Plan consistency 
requirement of Administrative Code Section 2A.53. 

$150,000,000 

Under the California Government Code and the San 
Francisco Administrative Code, prior to issuing General 
Obligation Bonds, the Board of Supervisors must adopt a 
resolution, determining and declaring the public interest 
and necessity for incurring bond indebtedness, including 
the purpose and amount of the proposed debt. The Board 
of Supervisors must adopt the resolution not less than 141 
days before the election at which time the voters of San 
Francisco will consider the proposed General Obligation 
Bonds. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors must adopt 
the proposed resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity justifies the incurring of 
bond indebtedness on or before October 15, 2001, to 
submit the proposed General Obligation Bond measure 
for a vote by the San Francisco electorate for the March 5, 
2002 election. 



Approval of the proposed resolution would (a) determine 
and declare that the public interest and necessity demand 
the financing of street resurfacing, curb ramp 
construction, sidewalk improvement and street 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

improvement projects, (b) find that the estimated cost of 
$150,000,000 can not be paid from ordinary City 
revenues, requiring the incurrence of bond indebtedness, 
and (c) find that the proposed pedestrian safety and street 
resurfacing projects conform with Section 101.1(b) of the 
City Planning Code and with the City's General Plan. 

Comments: 1. In July of 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted a 

resolution (File 01-0888), establishing the Pedestrian 
Safety and Street Resurfacing Working Group. The 
Working Group, which has twelve members appointed by 
the Board of Supervisors, was charged with (a) reviewing 
the existing and projected capital needs related to the 
backlog of pedestrian safety, disability access, bicycle 
safety, street resurfacing, and school area safety projects, 
and (b) reporting to the Board of Supervisors and to the 
San Francisco Transportation Authority on existing and 
potential funding sources for such capital projects, 
including issuing General Obligation bonds. The Working 
Group is in the process of preparing a street and sidewalk 
improvement proposal, which will tentatively be 
submitted to the Capital Improvement Advisory 
Committee (CIAC) on October 17, 2001. The tentative 
proposal would allocate bond funds to the following 
projects: 

Approximate Allocation of 
Proposed Type of General Obligation Bond 

Improvement Proceeds 

School safety projects $10,000,000 

Curb ramps 32,000,000 

Street resurfacing 50,000,000 

Livable Street projects 36,000,000 

Bicycle projects 8,000,000 

Better Neighborhoods 2002 12,000,000 

Bond issuance costs 2.000.000 

Total $150,000,000 

As of the writing of this report, the Working Group has 
not approved a final proposal and the CIAC has not yet 
reviewed the proposal. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. School safety projects would include such projects as 
improved signage and high-visibility ladder style 
crosswalks, sidewalk bulb-outs 1 , mini-traffic circles, speed 
bumps, and curb ramps. Livable Street projects would 
include similar projects, such as sidewalk corner bulb- 
outs, improved signage, planting of street trees, and curb 
ramps. Bicycle projects would include bicycle parking 
facilities, and innovative treatments to existing streets to 
improve bicycle safety and access. Better Neighborhoods 
2002 would include discreet pedestrian safety projects in 
the neighborhoods. 

3. Under the Working Group's tentative proposal, 
approximately $50,000,000, or 33 percent, of the 
$150,000,000 in General Obligation Bond proceeds would 
be allocated to City street resurfacing. Currently, DPW 
uses a Pavement Management and Mapping System 
(PMMS) to set priorities for resurfacing City-maintained 
streets. Priorities for resurfacing streets are determined 
by pavement conditions, type of street use, average daily 
traffic, and transit routes. According to Ms. Tina Olson of 
DPW, the City would need to expend an estimated 
$29,500,000 annually on street resurfacing to maintain 
City streets in optimal condition. Ms. Olson states that, 
presently, DPW budgets approximately $15,300,000 
annually in combined State, Federal, and local sales tax 
funding for resurfacing streets, which is $14,200,000 less 
than the estimated annual average cost for street 
resurfacing of $29,500,000. 

4. According to Ms. Monique Moyer of the Mayor's Office 
of Public Finance, the City Charter provides for a legal 
debt limit of three percent of net assessed property value. 
The Mayor's Office of Public Finance has calculated the 
City's Debt Limit as follows: 



1 Bulb-outs are sidewalk extensions used to slow (or calm) traffic at street intersections or pedestrian 
crossings. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Net Assessed Property Value $87,262,335,367 

Three Percent Debt Limit $2,617,870,061 

Estimated Outstanding General 

Obligation Bonds $974,440,000 

FY 2001-2002 Remaining Debt 

Capacity $1,643,430,061 

Currently, the City has $951,845,000 in authorized 
General Obligation Bonds that have not yet been issued. 
The Budget Analyst notes that, if the City were to issue 
the authorized General Obligation Bonds in the amount of 
$951,845,000 in FY 2001-2002, the FY 2001-2002 
Remaining Debt Capacity would be $691,585,061 
($1,643,430,061 less $951,845,000). If the subject bond 
issue of $150,000,000 proposed for the March 5, 2002, 
ballot were to be approved by the voters, and all 
$150,000,000 in bonds were issued in FY 2001-2002, the 
remaining General Obligation bonding capacity would be 
$541,585,061 ($691,585,061 less $150,000,000). 

5. Section 3 of the proposed resolution states that the 
Board of Supervisors finds and declares that the proposed 
project is (1) in conformity with the priority policies of 
Section 101.1(b) of the City Planning Code and (2) in 
accordance with Section 2A.53(f) of the City 
Administrative Code, that the proposed project is 
consistent with the City's General Plan and adopts the 
findings of the City Planning Department as set forth in 
the City General Plan Referral Report, prepared by the 
Planning Department. Mr. Steve Shotland of the 
Planning Department states that the Planning 
Department has not yet received the General Plan 
Referral from the Pedestrian Safety and Stret 
Resurfacing Working Group. According to the Office of 
the Sponsor, an Amendment of the Whole will be 
submitted at the October 10, 2001, Finance Committee 
meeting, deleting Section 3 of the subject resolution. 

6. According to Mr. Matthew Hymel of the Controller's 
Office, if $150,000,000 in bonds were to be issued, the 
debt service on the bonds would result in an increase in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

the Property Tax rate of approximately $0.01388 per $100 
of assessed value. At this rate, the owner of a single- 
family residence assessed at $400,000, assuming the 
$7,000 homeowner's exemption, would pay an average of 
$54.53 in additional annual Property Taxes beginning in 
FY2001-2001. 2 

7. If the proposed resolution is approved, the Board of 
Supervisors must adopt an ordinance to submit the 
proposed issuance of the General Obligation Bonds to the 
voters not less than 99 days before the March 5, 2001 
election, pursuant to the Administrative Code. 
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors must adopt such 
ordinance on or before November 26, 2001. 

8. If the electorate approves the proposed General 
Obligation Bonds, the subsequent issuance and sale of 
such bonds would require approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. Furthermore, expenditure of any of the 
proceeds of the proposed General Obligation Bonds would 
also require appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



2 This estimate of the impact on the property tax of a household of the proposed General Obligation 
Bonds assumes that the entire bond amount of $150,000,000 would be issued upon approval by the 
San Francisco voters. According to the Controller's Office, the debt service on $150,000,000 over a 
twenty year period would be approximately $12,400,000 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 01-1389 



Departments: 



Item: 



Location: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 
Real Estate Division 

Resolution approving the award by the Department of 
Parking and Traffic of a management agreement for the 
City-owned Vallejo Street Garage and the new City- 
owned North Beach Garage to Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated. 

The Vallejo Street garage is located at 766 Vallejo Street 
between Powell and Stockton Streets. The new North 
Beach Garage is located at 735 Vallejo Street between 
Powell and Stockton Streets, across the street from the 
Vallejo Street Garage. 



Purpose of Management 



Agreement: 



Description: 



To provide for the operation and maintenance of the 
Vallejo Street Garage and the new North Beach Garage, 
two City-owned parking garages, with a combined total of 
330 parking spaces. The Vallejo Street Garage has 127 1 
parking spaces, which is approximately 38.5 percent of 
the total parking spaces. The new North Beach Garage 
will have 203 parking spaces, or 61.5 percent of the total 
parking spaces. 

The proposed resolution would award the management 
agreement for the Vallejo Street Garage and the new 
North Beach Garage, two of the 18 City-owned parking 
garages, to Pacific Park Management Incorporated. 

Vallejo Street Garage 

The Vallejo Street Garage is open to the public seven days 
per week for 12 hours per day, Sunday through Thursday 
from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 16 hours per day, Friday and 
Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. Currently, the Vallejo 
Street Garage is managed by the City Parking Company 
under a month-to-month holdover provision of a five-year 
management agreement that commenced on September 1, 



1 Although the Vallejo Street Garage has a total of 162 parking spaces, the proposed management 
agreement would apply to only 127 parking spaces. The City's Police Department occupies the 
remaining 35 parking spaces with its emergency vehicles because of the close proximity of the 
Vallejo Street Police Station, located at 766 Vallejo Street, to the Vallejo Street Garage. There is no 
formal agreement between DPT and the Police Department regarding this arrangement for 35 
parking spaces. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget, Analyst 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Amount Payable by 
The City to Pacific 
Park Management 
Incorporated: 



1993 and expired on August 31, 1998. According to Mr. 
Steven Lee of DPT, the existing management agreement 
has been held over on a month-to-month basis since 
August 31, 1998 because DPT was waiting to enter into a 
new management agreement for both the Vallejo Street 
Garage and the new North Beach Garage upon the 
completion of the new North Beach Garage. According to 
Mr. Lee, the North Beach Garage is anticipated to be open 
for operations on January 1, 2002. 

North Beach Garage 

The old North Beach Garage, built in 1919 with 82 
parking spaces, was demolished in 1998 to build a new, 
larger parking garage. As noted above, Mr. Lee reports 
that DPT anticipates that construction of the new North 
Beach Garage will be completed and the garage will be 
open to the public by January 1, 2002. The new North 
Beach Garage will be open to the public seven days per 
week for 24 hours per day. 



Management Fee 

Under the proposed management agreement, the City 
would pay Pacific Park Management Incorporated a fixed 
management fee of $37,762.76 per month which is 
$453, 144 2 for calendar year 2002 and each subsequent 
year of the proposed three-year management agreement, 
to operate and maintain the two garages. This fixed 
management fee of $453,144 is 20.6 percent of total 
estimated annual gross revenues of $2,200,000 for both 
garages. As shown in Attachment I, provided by DPT, the 
management fee for the Vallejo Street Garage is $181,258 
and the management fee for the new North Beach Garage 
is $271,886 for calendar year 2002 and each subsequent 
year of the proposed three-year management agreement. 

Proprietary Expenses 

As shown in Attachment I, the City would also pay Pacific 
Park Management Incorporated proprietary expenses of 
an estimated $6,125 per month or $73,500 for calendar 



2 Rounded from $453,153.12. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

year 2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed 
three-year management agreement. Section 2.33 of the 
proposed management agreement defines proprietary 
expenses as "...all capital expenditures, all electricity 
billings and all insurance and bond premiums specifically 
approved by the Director [of the Parking Authority] as a 
proprietary expense." Insurance consists of property 
insurance, business interruption insurance, and boiler 
and machinery insurance. According to Section 10.7 of the 
proposed management agreement, "All Proprietary 
Expenses shall be the obligation of the City." Of the 
estimated $73,500 payable for proprietary expenses for 
calendar year 2002 and each subsequent year of the 
proposed three-year management agreement, $33,500 will 
be paid for the Vallejo Street Garage and $40,000 will be 
paid for the new North Beach Garage. As explained in a 
memorandum of October 1, 2001 from Mr. Lee 
(Attachment II), DPT does not anticipate a change in 
proprietary expenses over the three-year term of the 
proposed management agreement because (a) DPT has 
accounted for the potential fluctuation in the market price 
of electricity in the estimated proprietary expenses and 
(b) DPT does not foresee an increase in the actual 
insurance costs for the Vallejo Street Garage and the 
anticipated insurance costs for the new North Beach 
Garage. 

Total Estimated Amount to be Paid Each Year by the City 
to Pacific Park Management 

The City would pay Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated an estimated $526,644 for calendar year 
2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed three-year 
management agreement to manage the two garages, 
including $453,144 for the fixed management fee and an 
estimated $73,500 in proprietary expenses. 

Estimated Annual 

Gross Revenues 3 : Approximately $2,200,000 in calendar year 2002 and each 

subsequent year of the proposed three-year management 
agreement. As stated by Mr. Lee in Attachment II, DPT 
estimates the same amount of $2,200,000 in gross 
revenues in 2003 and 2004 because "Given the current 



3 Gross revenues equal gross receipts less Parking Taxes. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

downturn in the economy, we were conservative and don't 
anticipate growth for the term of the Management 
Agreement." As shown in Attachment I, the Vallejo Street 
Garage is anticipated to generate an estimated $880,000 
per year in gross parking revenues and the North Beach 
Garage is anticipated to generate an estimated 
$1,320,000 in gross parking revenues. 

Estimated Annual Net 

Income to the City 4 : $1,673,356 ($665,242 from the Vallejo Street Garage and 

$1,008,114 from the North Beach Garage) in calendar 
year 2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed 
three-year management agreement based on an estimated 
$2,200,000 in gross receipts less $453,144 for the fixed 
management fee and less $73,500 for estimated 
proprietary expenses. Anticipated annual net income to 
the City, as shown in Attachment I, does not consider 
annual debt service for the new North Beach Garage of 
$418,000 in calendar year 2002, and $650,000 in calendar 
years 2003 and 2004. When this annual debt service is 
taken into account, the estimated annual net income to 
the City becomes $1,255,356 ($1,673,356 less $418,000) in 
calendar year 2002 and $1,023,356 ($1,673,356 less 
$650,000) in calendar years 2003 and 2004. Mr. Lee 
reports that debt service for the North Beach Garage will 
be paid off by June 15, 2022. There is no debt service on 
the Vallejo Street Garage, according to Mr. Lee. 

Incentive Fee: As noted above, annual gross revenues are anticipated to 

total $2,200,000 in calendar year 2002 and each 
subsequent year of the proposed three-year management 
agreement. If annual gross revenues exceed $2,200,000, 
then, in addition to the fixed management fee of $453,144 
and the estimated proprietary expenses of $73,500, the 
City would also pay Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated 15 percent of gross revenues exceeding 
$2,200,000. If annual gross revenues exceed $2,400,000, 
then the City would pay Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated 20 percent of gross revenues exceeding 
$2,400,000. However, the incentive fee payable to Pacific 
Park Management Incorporated could not exceed 



4 Net income to the City equals gross revenues less management fees and proprietary expenses. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

$100,000 for any year under the proposed three-year 
management agreement. 

Term of Agreement: Three years commencing on the opening of the new North 

Beach Garage, anticipated to be January 1, 2002, and 
expiring on December 31, 2004. The term of the proposed 
management agreement could be extended annually for 
two additional years upon mutual written agreement 
between the Director of the Parking Authority and Pacific 
Park Management Incorporated. Upon the expiration of 
the second one-year extension, the management 
agreement may be further extended on a month-to-month 
basis. According to Section 4.3 of the proposed 
management agreement, "Any holding over after the 
expiration of the initial term or either extension shall 
extend this Management Agreement on a month-to-month 
basis. Such holding over period shall be on the same terms 
and conditions of this Management Agreement and the 
Management Fee paid to Management shall be at the rate 
in effect during the most recently expired term. Any such 
period beyond twelve months must be approved by the 
[Parking and Traffic] Commission." In accordance with 
the terms of the proposed management agreement, the 
agreement could be extended indefinitely on a month-to- 
month basis without obtaining approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends 
that the proposed management agreement be amended to 
require Board of Supervisors approval to extend the 
agreement on a month-to-month basis for any such period 
beyond the initial 12 months of a month-to-month 
extension. 

According to Section 17.1 of the proposed management 
agreement, the termination provisions are as follows: 'Wo 
sooner than eighteen (18) months after the commencement 
date of this Management Agreement, the Director [of the 
Parking Authority] shall have the right to terminate this 
Management Agreement, with or without cause, by 
providing at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior 
written notice to the Manager of the City's election. 
Termination shall be effective upon the expiration of the 6- 
month notice period or at such later date as is specified in 
the notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director [of 
the Parking Authority] shall have the right to terminate 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Capital Improvement 
Costs: 



Comments: 



immediately this Management Agreement upon an Event 
of Default." 



Capital improvement costs are estimated at $250,000 for 
the Vallejo Street Garage, of which Pacific Park 
Management Incorporated is required to pay the first 
$50,000 and DPT would pay an estimated $200,000. 
According to Section 8.2 of the proposed management 
agreement, "Manager shall complete the capital 
improvements within twelve (12) months of the date hereof 
unless the Director grants a written extension. The 
estimated cost of such capital improvements is 
approximately $250,000, however, no assurance can be 
given that such capital improvements will not exceed the 
estimated cost. Notwithstanding anything in this 
Management Agreement to the contrary, the costs and 
expenses incurred by Manager in the performance by it of 
the obligations set forth in this Section shall be paid as 
follows: the first $50,000 shall be deemed to be an 
'Operating Expense' with the balance deemed a 
'Proprietary Expense' under this Management Agreement. " 
Under the proposed management agreement, capital 
improvement costs could exceed $250,000 over the three- 
year term of the agreement. The Budget Analyst 
recommends that the proposed management agreement 
be amended to require that capital improvement costs 
cannot exceed $250,000 over the three-year term of the 
agreement without first obtaining prior approval of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Capital improvements include retrofitting the existing 
fighting system, restriping and painting the interior of the 
garage and waterproofing the roof and 4 th floor levels. Mr. 
Lee advises that there will be no additional capital 
improvement costs for the new North Beach Garage. 

1. According to Mr. Charles Sullivan of the City 
Attorney's Office, the inclusion of a provision which 
authorizes the Director of the Parking Authority to make 
certain modifications, changes, or additions to the 
management agreement, subsequent to the approval of 
this proposed legislation by the Board of Supervisors, 
without further approval from the Board of Supervisors, 

Board of Supervisors ■ 

Budget Analyst 
12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



is standard language in parking management 
agreements. Mr. Sullivan advises that this language is 
intended to allow the Director of the Parking Authority to 
make non-substantive changes to the proposed 
management agreement, upon consultation with the City 
Attorney, without the need for additional approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

2. As previously noted, the Vallejo Street Garage is 
currently operated by City Parking Company under a 
month-to-month holdover provision of a five-year 
management agreement that expired on August 31, 1998. 
Under the provisions of the existing management 
agreement, the City pays to the City Parking Company a 
management fee of 32.7 percent of gross revenues 
generated by the operation of the Vallejo Street Garage. 
Attachment I shows the amount paid to the City Parking 
Company in calendar years 1999 and 2000, and the 
anticipated amount to be paid to the City Parking 
Company in calendar year 2001. In calendar year 2001 
under the existing management agreement, the 
management fee is estimated to be $316,204 or 32.7 
percent of gross revenues and the proprietary expenses 
are estimated at $230,000 or 23.8 percent of gross 
revenues. The total estimated amount payable to City 
Parking Company for calendar year 2001 including the 
management fee and proprietary expenses is an 
estimated $546,204 or 56.5 percent of gross revenues for 
managing the Vallejo Street Garage. 

As previously noted, under the proposed management 
agreement, the City would pay Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated in calendar year 2002 and each subsequent 
year of the proposed three-year management agreement a 
fixed management fee rather than a percentage of gross 
revenues. The fixed management fee of $453,144, results 
in Pacific Park Management Incorporated receiving 20.6 
percent of the estimated annual gross revenues of 
$2,200,000 to manage both the Vallejo Street Garage and 
the new North Beach Garage. The City would also pay to 
Pacific Park Management Incorporated an estimated 
$73,500 annually for proprietary expenses in calendar 
year 2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed 
three-year management agreement which would be 3.3 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



percent of the estimated annual gross revenues. This total 
estimated annual payment of $526,644 ($453,144 plus 
$73,500) in calendar year 2002 and each subsequent year 
of the proposed three-year management agreement to 
manage both the Vallejo Street Garage and the new 
North Beach Garage is approximately 23.9 percent of the 
estimated annual gross revenues of $2,200,000 and is 
$19,560 or 3.6 percent less than the $546,204 in 
management fees and proprietary expenses that the City 
is projected to pay to City Parking Company in calendar 
year 2001 just to manage one garage, the Vallejo Street 
Garage. 

3. As shown in Attachment I, in calendar year 2001 
under the existing management agreement, the Vallejo 
Street Garage is projected to generate net income to the 
City of $420,780. In calendar year 2002 and each 
subsequent year of the proposed three-year management 
agreement, the Vallejo Street Garage is projected to 
generate net income to the City of $665,242 under the 
proposed management agreement, which is $244,462 or 
58.1 percent more than the $420,780 projected to be 
generated in calendar year 2001 under the existing 
agreement. According to Mr. Lee, this projected increase 
in net income to the City results because under the 
proposed management agreement, DPT will keep all 
parking revenues and pay the parking operator a fixed 
management fee to operate the Vallejo Street Garage 
instead of paying a management fee based on a 
percentage of the gross parking revenues that is currently 
being paid under the existing management agreement. In 
addition, under the existing management agreement, 
proprietary expenses include valet services and expenses 
related to 24-hour operations, which will both cease when 
the new North Beach Garage opens. Instead, under the 
proposed management agreement, the Vallejo Street 
Garage will operate seven days per week for 12 hours per 
day, Sunday through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. 
and 16 hours per day, Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. 
to 2 a.m. The new North Beach Garage will be open seven 
days per week for 24 hours per day. Mr. Lee advises that 
Section 5.2 of the proposed management agreement does 
include provisions to allow for additional services, which 
could include valet services, extended operating hours or 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



additional personnel to be provided at the Vallejo Street 
and/or North Beach Garages. According to Mr. Lee, 
compensation for such additional services would be at cost 
plus ten percent of the actual labor costs as stated in 
Section 5.2 of the proposed management agreement. 

4. According to Mr. Jerry Romani of the Real Estate 
Division, on March 3, 2001, the Real Estate Division 
(RED), on behalf of DPT, issued an Invitation for Bids to 
200 parking companies for the management of the Vallejo 
Street Garage and the North Beach Garage. Attachment 
III, provided by DPT, lists the 17 firms that requested bid 
packages from RED, the 11 firms that submitted pre- 
qualification questionnaires and the eight firms that 
submitted bids which were received by RED on June 15, 
2001. The bid amounts represent the monthly fixed 
management fee payable by DPT to the parking operator. 
As noted in Attachment III, Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated submitted the lowest monthly management 
fee bid of $33,986.48 after their original bid of $37,762.76 
was adjusted by the Human Rights Commission by 10 
percent since Pacific Park Management Incorporated is a 
locally-owned minority business enterprise (LBE/MBE) 
firm. According to Mr. Lee, the Human Rights 
Commission evaluated only the three lowest bids 
submitted. Therefore, Mr. Lee advises that the bids from 
the other five parking operator firms were listed as "not in 
contention" in Attachment III. Mr. Lee further advises 
that the lowest bid was from PPS Parking, a firm that 
was "not certified" as a locally-owned minority business 
enterprise (LBE/MBE) firm by the Human Rights 
Commission, as shown in Attachment III. Therefore, the 
bid of PPS Parking of $35,000 was higher than the 
adjusted bid of $33,986.48 for Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated. 

5. Attachment IV, provided by DPT, lists the parking 
rates at the Vallejo Street Garage and the new North 
Beach Garage as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors on June 4, 2001 (File 01-0868). Mr. Lee notes 
that these parking rates have been in effect for the Vallejo 
Street Garage since September 1, 2000, prior to approval 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

by the Board of Supervisors. 5 Mr. Lee reports that the 
parking rates for the new North Beach Garage will 
become effective when the garage begins operations which 
is anticipated to be on January 1, 2002. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with the Term of Agreement Section of 

this report, request the Parking and Traffic Commission to 
amend the subject management agreement by adding a 
provision which requires Board of Supervisors approval 
prior to the Parking and Traffic Commission and Pacific 
Park Management Incorporated agreeing to extend the 
management agreement on a month-to-month basis for any 
period beyond 12 months. 

2. In accordance with the Capital Improvement Costs 
Section of this report, request the Parking and Traffic 
Commission to amend the subject management agreement 
by adding a provision that capital improvement costs 
cannot exceed $250,000 over the three-year term of the 
management agreement without first obtaining prior 
approval of the Board of Supervisors. 

3. Continue the proposed resolution to the Call of the 
Chair, pending approval by the Parking and Traffic 
Commission to amend the subject management agreement 
in accordance with Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 above. 



5 In accordance with Section 17.14 of the Administrative Code, the Parking and Traffic Commission 
can establish parking rates at City-owned parking facilities on a trial basis for a period of up to 360 
days, without first obtaining approval of the Board of Supervisor. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

16 



Vallcjn Street Garage Revenue 



City Parking Company (Management Fee = 


32,7% of Gross Revenue) 


Calendar Year 


Gross Revenue 
(after parking tax) 


Management 
Fees 


Proprietary 

Expenses 


Net City 
Income 


1999 


5937,349 


$306,513 


$129,041 


$501,795 


2000 


$979,018 


$320,139 


$154,396 


$504,483 


2001* 


$966,983 


$316,204 


$230,000 


$420,780 



* 2001 Figures are January thru July actual and forecasts for August thru December. 
Valet Services and. additional operating hours (part of proprietary expenses) will 
discontinue when the North Beach Garage is operational. Average monthly costs = 
$13,000. 



New Manai 


»ement Agreement (Manacement Fee = 


- $453,144/yr for both garages') 


Anticipated 
Annual 


Target Gross 
Revenue 


Management 
Fees 


Proprietary 

Expenses 


Net City 
Income 


Vallcjo Street 
® 40% 


$880,000 


$181,258 


$33,500 


$665,242 


North Beach 
(23 60% 


$1,320,000 


$271,886 


$40,000 


$1,008,114 



Target Gross Revenue = $2*200,000, 

Vallejo Street Proprietary Expense = $33,500 ($30,000 electricity & $3,500 insurance). 

North Beach Proprietary Expense = $40,000 ($36,000 electricity & $4,000 Insurance). 

Revenue and Expenses are projected through the three-year terra of the Management 

Agreement. The anticipated proprietary expenses are direct casts related to each garage 

and no? a percentage of totals. 

North Beach Garage Annual Debt Service for calendar year 2002 ~ $418,000, 

thereafter = $650,000 through June 1 5, 2022. Net City Income does not reflect payment 

of debt service. 

Insurance 

Attached is a memorandum to the proposers from the Real Estate Division dated June 8, 
2001 that identifies insurance items that are included in the management fee. The 
Property insurance, including Business Interruption insurance, and Boiler and Machinery 
insurance are costs paid by the City above the management fee. The annual premium at 
the Vallejo Street Garage is S3,50O.Q0 and should be slightly higher for the North Beach 
Garage. y 

Dnteof Advertisement 

The Real Estate Division advertised on March 3 rd , and 6*, of 2001 in the San Francisco 
Independent, Notices of the Invitation to Bid were sent out to about 200 parties that are 
on the mailing list. 

Please call mc if you have any questions. 

AlCich. 

HA]'ARJCJNG\G«ragetW9llijjc SireeAMomo m A..Weinaicin budget «nnlyii.doe 



17 



City and County of San Francisco 




Real Estate Division 
Administrative Services Department 



MEMORANDUM 



June 8, 2001 



VIA FACSIMILIE 



TO: Prospective Bidders 

North Beach- Vallejo Street Garage Bid 

FROM: Jerry Romani A\£- 

Principal Real Property Officer 

SUBJECT: Insurance Costs 

You were previously advised that the cost of all insurance and bonds was a proprietary 
expense. As such, the cost of the insurance and bonds would not comprise a portion of 
your bid. However, we now request that you include the cost of the comprehensive 
general liability insurance, business automobile liability insurance, garage-keeper's legal 
liability insurance, Workers' Compensation Insurance, blanket fidelity bond and faithful 
performance surety bond, as specified in Article 12 of the subject management 
agreement, in your bid as an operating expense. The cost of property insurance, 
including business interruption insurance, and boiler and machinery insurance, also 
specified in Article 12, will remain as a proprietary expense and should not be included in 
your bid. 

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 554-9876. 



cc: Ron Szeto, Parking Authority 
vSteven Lee, Parking Authority 



(415)554-9850 
FAX: (41 5) 552-921 6 



Office of the Director of Property 

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 

13 



San Francisco, 94102 



A N PRANCIBCO 



Page F o-h "2 

City and County of San Francisco 




£PABTMENT OF PARKINQ k TRAFFIC 




ILUE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

*ED M. HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

DNALD S2ET0. ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 


October 1, 2001 


TO: 


Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst Office 


FROM: 


Steven Lee /4£ 
Principal Analyst 
SF Parking Authority 



RE: Award of the North Beach Garage and Vallejo.Street Garage 

Management Agreement to Pacific Park Management, Inc. 



This memorandum is a supplement to the memo dated September 25, 2001 that addressed 
the subject matter and additional information that you requested. 

In response to your questions in regard to a projection of growth in the revenues and 
expenseSj we have determined that a conservative projection is the most prudent 
approach. Below are specific answers to your questions. 

Question - Why did wc not project growth for years 2002 and 2003 of the Management 
Agreement? 

Answer - Given the current downturn in the economy, we were conservative and do not 
want to anticipate growth for the term of the Management Agreement. 
However, we are noticing that the smaller neighborhood garages are able to 
maintain their current status, As this fiscal year progresses and we are able to 
gather more information, we will include growth, if apparent, within our FY 
2002-2003 Budget projections. 

Question - Why are the uioprietary expenses for electrical and insurance constant for the 
term of the Management Agreement? 



1S)5S4-PARK FAX(415)S54-8B34 



25 Van Nmi Avenui, Suit* 410 



San Francltco, CA 941 02 -J 678 



19 



Paq;e 2 of 2 



Answer - We decided to make the electrical costs a proprietary expense so that the City 
would realize costs savings, if any, from a lighting retrofit or reduction in 
electricity rates, On the other hand, if the electrical costs were to dramatically 
increase, the operator may not be able to financially cope with this unforeseen 
increase. At this time, the electrical costs have already increased from the 
prior year and we do not foresee anymore significant increases through the 
term of the Management Agreement 

The cost of insurance for the Vallejo Street Garage is one of eleven garages 
insured through the City's Risk Manager. We do not foresee an increase in 
the insurance costs for the Vallejo Street Garage for the term of the 
Management Agreement. At this time, we can only anticipate that the 
electrical and insurance cost for the North Beach Garage would be slightly 
higher than the Vallejo Street Garage with the same reasons for the 
projections. 

The revised Exhibit B - Parking Rate Schedule for the North Beach Garage and the 
Vallejo Street Garage is attached. The revised Parking Rate Schedule reflects what is 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Please do not hesitate to call me at 554-9869 if you have further concerns or questions. 

Attach. 



H:\PARKING\Oaraga\VBllojo Slrcel\Memo lo A-Woinilein re Villojo&NonJa.doc 



20 



AUEienment ill 
, u ape I of 2 



BAN F R A N CISCO 



City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PAHKINQ t TRAFFIC 



VIUJE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

•"RED M. HAMQUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

lONALD SZETO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 




10 



11 



12 



_13_ 
14 



15 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 
RE: 



MEMORANDUM 



September 19, 2001 

Anna Wejnstein 
Budget Analyst Office 

Steven Lee 
Principal Analyst 
SF Parking Authority 

Award of the North Beach Garage and VaUejo Street Garage 
Management Agreement to Pacific Park Management, Inc. 



Per our discussion, the following are the items of clarification that you requested. 
Interested Firms 



PJclced-up Bid Package 



ABC Parking, Inc. 



Beach Parking 



Central Parking Sy stern_ 
City Park Management 



City Parking Company 



Paja, Inc. 



11 Submitted 
Pre-qoalificatlon 



Submitted Bid 



Yes 



Pacific Park Manag ement 



Parking Concepts. Tnc. 



Pro Park 



PPS Parkim 



Universal Parkin p 



Yes 



Yes 



.Yes (withdrew 1 ) 



Yes 



Yes 



541,753.00 



S4 1,249.76 



$42,071.00 



S36.836.00 ( withrfreu;) 



537,762.76 



Adjusted for HRC 
Bid Discount 



Ngtjn contention 



Not in conten tion 



Not in contention 



Withdrew b id 



544,348.00 



Yes 



Yes 
Yes 



I > 564-f ARK FAX (41 S) 554-9*3* 



S35.000.0Q 



551,918.00 



S3J I 9J6 1 4^>>V1()% 



Not in contention 



$35,000 not certified 



NgjilLCQntention 



25 Van N«i 6 AvfiniM, Suite 410 



San Fnncltco, CA 84102-«7fl 



21 



j County of San Francisco 



*« 




Willie Lewis 3fown, Jr 
Mayor 



Faee 2 of" 2 

Human Rights commission 

contract Comphanoo 

Pitput* Resolution/Fair Housing 

Mlnority/Womift/Local Business EnUrpriia 

Lospjin Gay Bis* tuai Transgsndet & HIV Dixcrlmlnation 



MEMORANDUM 



Virginia M. Harmon 
Interim Director 



To: Jerry Romani, Department of Real Estate 
Ron Szcto, Parking & Traffic 

From: Baya$TFong 

Contract Compliance Officer 



Date: July 12.2001 



Re: Ratings Discounts for the North Beach Garage-Vallejo St. Garage Bid. 

KRC has conducted a review of the top three ranked proposals on the above-identified 
solicitation to determine compliance with the Chapter 12D.A MBE/WBE/LBE discount 
and subcontracting requirements. It should be noted that due to the Size and scope of this 
project, the MBE/WBE subconsulting goals were waived. 

Based on the Chan below we have made the following findings: 

Although PPS Parking had the lowest bid, it did not apply for a rating discount. 
The next bidder NM Parking has withdrawn its bid. The third bidder, Pacific Park 
Management - claimed a 10% EBE/MBE rating discount on HRC Form 1 . Pacific Park 
Management is HRC certified as an MBE. Therefore, Pacific Park Management is 
eligible for a 10% rating discount. Incorporating the discount moves Pacific Park 
Management into first position. 



Proposer 


Bid 


HRC Rating D HRC% 


Adjusted Bid Rank 


PPS Parking - 


$35,000 


No 


$35,000 2 


NM Parking - 


$36,836 


Yes 10 


(32,153) withdrew - 


Pacific Park- 


$37,762 


Yes 10 


$33,986 1 



In addition, Pacific Park Management is in the process, of coming into compliance with 
Chapter 12B. Assuming this is completed, Pacific Park Management will be eligible for 
consideration of award. 



If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Your cooperati 
greatly appreciated. 



on is 



Cc: Diana Rathbone, HRC 
Virginia Harmon, HRC 



25 van |Ne« A»cn u e 

Sui|o BOO 

San Pranotco 

California 941 o?-6033 







TEL (41 6) 262-2600 
FAX (415)431-5764 
TOD (413)252-2550 

nrtp:/A«ww sfnurnanngnis org 



22 



TriTCl P 7& 



■ i. L-auLHUtm L IV 



Exhibit B 

North Beach Garage 
Vallcjo Street Garage 
Parking Rate Schedule 

D ay Rates (7 m to 7pm) Monday thmi.g h sm afla x 

J g 0ur S1.50 

2 Hours j 3 25 

3 Hours g^*2 5 

J g 0UrS $7.'50 

J g 0UrS $9.50 

*2° urs ? 12 -oo 

7+Hours $15.00 

Evening Rates (7pm to 7am) Monday through Saturday 
Su nday and Holiday Rates fall da d 

\ g 0UrS 55.00 

1 S OUfS 57.50 

1 ^° UrS S10.00 

5+ Hours ci*-, c* 



24 Hours 
Lost Ticket 



MONT TiTrYPAftKlKQ 



$12.50 

$27.50 
$27.50 



p $150.00 



MJSCEt. MNFOTis rH^ R rTrs 

Late Monthly Payments * 9 r nrt 

Lost Access Card ~JS 

Access Card Deposit jS"™ 

Damaged Access Card Jo c „« 

Opening Fee gS ; «| 



23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 -File 01-1566 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 

Sources of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution to retroactively approve the expenditure of 
$272,846 to construct a new sewer on Tennessee Street 
from Cesar Chavez Street approximately one-half block 
toward 26 th Street and on Cesar Chavez Street from 3 rd 
Street to Tennessee Street. 

$272,846 

PUC Repair and Replacement Fund. 

The proposed resolution would retroactively authorize the 
PUC to expend $272,846 to construct a new sewer on 
Tennessee Street from Cesar Chavez Street 
approximately one-half block toward 26 th Street and on 
Cesar Chavez Street from 3 rd Street to Tennessee Street. 
The PUC originally declared this project an emergency on 
March 22, 2001 (PUC Resolution No. 01-0117). According 
to the PUC, the emergency declaration was required 
because the existing sewer was in eminent danger of 
collapse and did not have a legal easement. The PUC 
reports that the situation posed a potentially significant 
liability issue for the City if the sewer undermined a 
private construction project that was underway on the 
street above. 

As a result of the damaged sewer, the emergency work 
required the following to be done: 

♦ Construct 474 linear feet of 21-inch diameter 
vitrified clay pipe sewers on crushed rock bedding. 

♦ Construct concrete manholes. 

♦ Install cast iron water traps including clean-out 
caps for catch basins. 

♦ Perform trench excavation support work. 

♦ Handle, transport and dispose of hazardous wastes, 
toxic materials ad serpentine soils. 

♦ Videotape newly constructed main sewers. 

♦ Plug and fill existing sewers. 

♦ Provide off-duty police officers for traffic control. 

♦ Provide mobilization and demobilization. 

♦ Restore pavement and trenches. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



♦ Perform additional paving to mitigate damage to 
Cesar Chavez Street in accordance with special 
paving requirements of the City's Excavation Code. 

In accordance with Section 6.60 of the Administrative 
Code, the PUC conducted an expedited contracting 
procedure. Invitations to bid were faxed to 12 contractors 
listed in the Attachment to this report, provided by the 
PUC. The table below is a summary of the five contractor 
bids received by the PUC: 

PUC Contractor Bids 



Contractor 


Bid Amount 


Bid Discount 


Adjusted Bid 


Harty Pipeline Inc. 


$189,000 


10% 


$170,000 


K.J. Woods Construction, Inc. 


$234,000 


5% 


$222,300 


J. Flores Construction 


$257,342 


10% 


$231,607 


Marinship Construction 


$281,770 


10% 


$253,593 


JMB Construction Inc 


$338,020 


10% 


$304,218 



The PUC awarded a contract to Harty Pipeline Inc., as 
the low bidder. The actual contract amount increased by 
$83,846 resulting in a final contract cost of $272,846. x 
Construction began on April 7, 2001 and was completed 
on May 10, 2001. According to the PUC, the increases in 
cost from the original contract amount totaling $83,846, 
were due to the following reasons: 

♦ $73,404 to hire a specialized subcontractor for 
the removal and disposal of encountered 
hazardous materials (asbestos materials and 
hydrocarbon petroleum products; see 
Comment). 2 

♦ $10,793 for the contractor's a delay required to 
conduct a search for a proper disposal site for 
the hazardous waste excavated to pump heavy 
ground water and truck in new clean soil. 



1 In accordance with Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 6.60 of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code the PUC is required to obtain Board of Supervisor approval for all emergency contracts 
that exceed $250,000. 

2 During the course of the construction project, Harty Pipeline requested a project time 
extension of six days to accommodate the removal of 1,185 tons of hazardous soil. The 
original contract period was to last 28 days. The original project budget had a $5,000 
allowance for the removal of hazardous materials. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



♦ $351 for reductions to the actual cost from the 
bid price. 

As previously stated, the proposed resolution seeks to 
retroactively authorize expenditure of the $272,846 to 
contract for emergency sewer repairs. The PUC has 
already made progress payments totaling $234,047 which 
is authorized under Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 6.60 of 
the Administrative Code in response to an emergency 
expenditure. The PUC is withholding a final payment of 
$38,799 to Harty Pipeline Inc., pending Board of 
Supervisors approval of this proposed resolution. 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Ms Christine Tang of the PUC, states that the increased 
construction costs of $83,846 represent unavoidable costs 
arising out of the discovery of larger than anticipated 
quantities of hazardous materials. Ms. Tang also 
confirms that no other alternatives were available to the 
contractor other than the removal of the hazardous 
materials. Ms. Tang states that Waste Solutions Group, a 
specialized sub -contractor was obtained by Harty Pipeline 
Inc. to transport and dispose of the hazardous materials. 
According to Ms. Tang, the Department of Public Works' 
Bureau of Construction Management recommended 
Waste Solutions Group as a sub-contractor to Harty 
Pipeline Inc., the prime contractor. Of the total project 
cost of $272,841, Waste Solutions Group would be paid 
$66,731. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Attachment 



PROJECT NAME: Tennessee / Cesar Chavez Streets Emergency Sewer Construction 
(Contract No. CW-305E, Job No. 0197J) 

BED INVITATION 

DATE AND TIME: March 21, 2001— 18:54 



COMPANIES 






INVITED TO BID: 


1. 


A. Ruiz Construction Co. 




2. 


D'arcy & Harty Construction, Inc. 




3. 


Harty Pipelines, Inc. 




4. 


JMB Construction 




5. 


K. J. Woods Construction 




6. 


Marinship Construction Services, Inc. 




7. 


Shaw Pipelines, Inc. 




8. 


Troy's Construction Co. 




9. 


Uniacke Construction, Inc. 




10. 


Vargas & Esquivel Construction, Inc. 




11. 


J. Flores Construction 




12. 


McNamara & Smallman Construction 



27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 -File 01-1664 



Departments: 



Airport 

Administrative Services 
Division (RED) 



Department, Real Estate 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 70 noise 
easements for 69 properties in South San Francisco and 
one property in the unincorporated area of the County of 
San Mateo as part of the San Francisco Airport's Noise 
Insulation Program. 

$355,000 

Airport Capital Projects Commercial Paper Fund 

According to Ms. Sally Osaki of the Airport, the State 
Airport Noise Standards (Title 21 Section 5000 et. seq. of 
the California Code of Regulations) prohibits the 
operation of an airport, if that airport has an average 
noise impact of greater than 65 decibels (dB) on properties 
that have "incompatible land uses" with regard to this 
noise, unless a variance or waiver is obtained by that 
airport from the California Department of Transportation. 
"Incompatible land uses" include residences, schools, 
hospitals, convalescent homes and churches in which the 
interior noise caused by airport operations averages above 
65 dB. The State Airport Noise Standards have 
established a 45 dB interior noise standard for these 
incompatible land uses to become compatible land uses. 

As summarized in the attached September 28, 2001 
memorandum provided by Ms. Osaki, the State Airport 
Noise Standards now also require the Airport (1) to 
acquire noise easements for those residences and schools 
constructed after January 1, 1989, even if these 
residences already meet the interior 45 dB interior noise 
standard, (2) to acquire noise easements for a mobile 
home property, even if the mobile homes on the property 
cannot be adequately insulated to an interior noise 
standard of 45 dB, and (3) to also provide acoustical 
insulation for those properties built prior to January 1, 
1989 that can achieve the 45 dB interior noise standard. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



The proposed resolution would therefore authorize the 
Airport to acquire 69 noise easements in South San 
Francisco at a cost of $5,000 per easement, or a total cost 
of $345,000. According to Ms. Osaki, the $5,000 
represents the one-time compensation paid by the Airport 
to the property owner to obtain a signed easement 
agreement from each property owner. Under the proposed 
arrangements, Ms. Osaki reports that each property 
owner would receive the same one-time compensation of 
$5,000, regardless of the differences in the size or value of 
the properties (i.e., mobile home or single family 
residence). 

The proposed resolution would also authorize the Airport 
to acquire one easement to insulate one small private 
school in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County 
that was built prior to January 1, 1989. According to Ms. 
Osaki, the property owner of the school would be required 
to sign the subject easement agreement with the City in 
order to qualify to receive the available funding for noise 
insulation. As of the writing of this report, the Airport 
could not provide a specific cost estimate for installing the 
noise insulation in this one school property. However, Ms. 
Osaki advises that the total cost is not likely to exceed 
$50,000. 

According to Ms. Osaki, if the proposed resolution is 
approved, Grants of Easement would be acquired from the 
owners of these 70 properties. Ms. Osaki advises that of 
the 69 properties located in South San Francisco, one is a 
mobile home park, that as noted above, cannot be 
adequately insulated to achieve an interior noise standard 
of 45 dB. The remaining 68 properties located in South 
San Francisco are individual residences that were built 
after January 1, 1989, and therefore Ms. Osaki advises 
that all of these 68 residences have been constructed with 
adequate insulation to achieve an interior noise standard 
of45dB. 

Ms. Osaki reports that the one exception is the one 
property located in the unincorporated area of the County 
of San Mateo, which was previously not habitable space, 
but has recently been remodeled into a private school. Ms. 
Osaki advises that this one school property was originally 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

built prior to January 1, 1989 and was not originally- 
constructed with adequate noise insulation to achieve an 
interior noise standard of 45 dB. Furthermore, Ms. Osaki 
reports that the recent remodeling did not include such 
noise insulation. Ms. Osaki therefore reports that after 
this one easement is granted to the Airport, the Airport 
would also provide funding to install the required noise 
insulation for the one private school, per the Airport's 
Noise Insulation Program. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Osaki, the Airport, through its Noise 

Insulation Program, and in cooperation with neighboring 
municipalities and the County of San Mateo, has 
undertaken efforts to reduce noise levels for these 
incompatible land uses near the Airport, in order to 
comply with current California law. To date, as part of the 
Airport's Noise Insulation Program, the Board of 
Supervisors has previously authorized the Airport to 
acquire Grants of Easement, in exchange for insulating 
various facilities from noise. Such easements have been 
acquired by the Airport from the owners of 11,332 
dwellings, eight churches, and six schools in the Cities of 
Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, Millbrae, South San 
Francisco, and in the unincorporated areas of San Mateo 
County. Of the total cost of insulating these structures of 
$163,705,905, the Airport has paid approximately 
$124,725,905, or 76.2 percent, while the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) has awarded grant funds of 
approximately $38,980,000, or 23.8 percent to the local 
jurisdictions. 

2. As previously noted, Ms. Osaki states that the cost of 
one-time compensation of $5,000 for obtaining a signed 
easement from the subject 69 properties would be 
$345,000, or $5,000 per property. In addition, the Airport 
would be required to obtain one additional easement, at 
no additional cost, to provide noise insulation for the one 
property that contains a private school in the 
unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, at an 
estimated cost not to exceed $50,000. Together, the 
proposed resolution therefore authorizes the acquisition of 
70 noise easements. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. According to Ms. Osaki, the Airport would be 
responsible for fully funding the one-time cost of $5,000 
each, or $345,000 in total, to obtain the subject 69 signed 
noise easements from the individual property owners 
because such costs are not eligible for FAA funding. Ms. 
Osaki advises that the FAA regulations restrict the FAA 
grants to only funding the cost of noise insulation, and do 
not provide funding for the cost of the one-time 
compensation to obtain the signed easements. 

However, Ms. Osaki reports that the one private school 
located in the unincorporated area of the County of San 
Mateo would be eligible to receive FAA grant funds of up 
to 80 percent of the total cost of the noise insulation. 
Assuming the preliminary estimated total cost of up to 
$50,000 for such noise insulation, the FAA would 
therefore fund up to $40,000 of such costs and the Airport 
would fund the remaining 20 percent, or $10,000 of costs. 
Ms. Osaki reports that, the private school owner would be 
required to sign the subject easement agreement with the 
City, at no expense to the Airport, in order for the one 
private school property to receive the estimated total 
reimbursements of up to $50,000 to install the necessary 
noise insulation in the school. 

According to Ms. Eve Eichwald of the Airport, the Airport 
Capital Projects Commercial Paper Fund would be used 
to fund the estimated $345,000 cost for the 69 noise 
easements and the 20 percent remaining (80 percent to be 
FAA grant funded) cost for the private school, or 
approximately $10,000 for the noise insulation, for a total 
estimated cost of $355,000. Ms. Eichwald advises that the 
Board of Supervisors previously authorized the Airport to 
issue up to $400 million of short-term debt through the 
Airport Capital Projects Commercial Paper Fund. 
Currently, the Airport has an outstanding balance of 
approximately $180 million in such short-term debt, such 
that the Airport has $220 million of available capital from 
this Fund, reports Ms. Eichwald. 

4. As stated in the attached memorandum, the 70 noise 
easements to be acquired by the Airport would be effective 
in perpetuity, and would bind the existing property 
owners, their heirs and any future property owners from 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



pursuing legal action against the City and County of San 
Francisco due to aircraft noise and/or vibration affecting 
that property. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: i Harvey Rose DATE: September 28, 2001 

FROM: Sally Osaki 

SUBJECT: Resolution to Acquire 70 Noise Easements 

Approval of the Board of Supervisors is required to acquire noise easements. This 
resolution adds 70 additional addresses to the lists previously submitted for approval. 

Background 

On May 15, 2001, San Francisco International Airport staff met a representative of the 
California Department of Transportation to review the airport's efforts to comply with 
State Airport Noise Standards (Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 5000 et 
seq.). At that time, the Airport requested a determination regarding the following items 
in Section 5014: (1) Requirement to insulate mobile homes within the noise impact 
boundary; (2) Requirement for noise easements for homes built after January 1, 1989 
even if these homes already meet the interior 45 dB interior noise standard. 

Although mobile homes cannot be adequately insulated to an interior noise standard of 
45 dB and the homes built after January 1, 1989 were built with insulation to meet the 
interior noise standard of 45 dB, the State regulations nonetheless require acquisition of 
easements for these properties. Therefore instead of offering $15,000 to insulate these 
properties, the Airport has offered $5,000 to acquire an easement for the properties on 
Castile Way, Rosa Flora Circle, and Pisa Court. All of these properties were built after 
January 1, 1989. The same offer was made to the property owners of 352 B Street which 
is a mobile home park. The final address on the list, 340 Alta Vista Drive was previously 
not habitable space but has now been remodeled into a private school and must be 
insulated. 

The following are the responses to your specific questions: 

1. The 68 properties on Castile Way, Rosa Flora Circle, and Pisa Court were all built 
after January 1989 and are not eligible for FAA funds because the FAA only funds 
noise insulation. These properties were not part of the home insulation program 
because they were constructed to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dB. However, 
the State Airport Noise Standards provide that residences constructed after January 1, 
1989 are compatible land uses only if an easement has been acquired by the airport 
proprietor. The Airport has determined that $5,000 is a reasonable price for an 
easement. Because construction work is not involved, all homes are offered the same 
price for acquisition. The school will be eligible for FAA grant funds. 



33 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Harvey Rose -2- September 28, 2001 



2. Section 5012 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations (21 CCR 5012) 
prohibits an airport proprietor of a noise problem airport from operating an airport 
with a noise impact area unless the airport has applied for or received a variance from 
the State Department of Transportation. Section 5014 of the State Regulations sets 
forth the parameters by which an airport can achieve Title 21 compliance so that all 
incompatible land uses within the State Noise Contour are eliminated and an airport is 
no longer required to operate under a variance from the State. 

An Airport can achieve Title 21 compliance by demonstrating one or more of the 
following: 

(1) acquisition of signed easements from residential owners, schools, hospitals or 
churches;. 

(2) existence of acoustical insulation to meet interior noise standards for 
residences constructed prior to January 1, 1989, or for schools, hospitals, 
churches; 

(3) genuine efforts made by an airport to insulate residences or acquire easements 
and property owners' refusal to take part in the program. 

3. The six noise easements authorized by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2001 were 
for six schools. These 70 addresses were not previously submitted because at the 
time, the Airport was not aware of the State's interpretation regarding easements for 
post-1989 residences and the Airport had thought these properties were compatible 
land uses under Title 21 . 

4. The Airport is offering a one-time compensation of $5,000 for a signed easement. 
These easements bind the property owner, their heirs, and any future buyers of the 
property from pursuing legal action against the City and County of San Francisco due 
to aircraft noise and/or vibration affecting the property, in perpetuity. 

I hope this responds to your request for additional information. 



hrosememo.doc 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-1669 



Department: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Real Estate Division 



Item: 



Description: 



A resolution authorizing an exchange between the PUC 
and Hayward-Oliver Owners, LLC of a portion of pipeline 
easement land in Hayward and authorizing the Director 
of Property and General Manager of the PUC to execute 
an Easement Modification Agreement with the Hayward- 
Oliver Owners. 

The proposed resolution would amend an existing pipeline 
easement on a parcel of land located in the City of 
Hayward, granted to the PUC by the Hayward-Oliver 
Owners, LLC. Currently the PUC has an unused 
easement consisting of approximately 66,181 square feet 
on the Hayward-Oliver property. 1 The entire property 
consists of approximately 123.2 acres. The PUC has 
agreed to quitclaim to the Hayward-Oliver Owners a 20- 
foot wide easement consisting of approximately 25,264 
square feet on the West side of the PUC's current 
easement in exchange for a 20-foot wide easement 
consisting of 39,204 square feet on the East side of the 
PUC's current easement. Additionally, the Hayward- 
Oliver Owners will grant the PUC additional surface 
rights which will enable the PUC to build a pumping 
station in the future. At the request of the Hayward- 
Oliver Owners, the proposed exchange of land between 
the PUC and the Hayward-Oliver Owners, LLC would 
result in the PUC quitclaiming approximately 0.58 acres 
or 25,264 square feet to Hayward-Oliver Owners in 
exchange for the PUC obtaining from Hayward-Oliver 
Owners 0.90 acres or 39,204 square feet, resulting in a 
net gain to the PUC of 13,940 square feet. Attachment I 
to this report, is a map of detailing the proposed 
easements to be exchanged in the section of the map 
labeled "Parcel 2". 



The pipeline easement exchange between the PUC and 
the Hayward-Oliver Owners, LLC is being requested by 
the Hayward-Oliver Owners to accommodate the 



1 According to Alameda County records the original easement agreement between the City and the 
property owners commenced on January 30, 1931. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

relocation of a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas pipeline 
as a result of mixed used development taking place on the 
Hayward-Oliver property. 2 In addition to the new surface 
rights being granted to the PUC, the developer will cover 
the entire costs of relocating the PG&E gas pipeline as 
well as the cost of constructing an embankment to 
support a new surface road as part of the site 
redevelopment project. 

Comments: 1. According Mr. Ken Chopping, of the Division of Real 

Estate in the Department of Administrative Services, the 
proposed resolution authorizing the exchange of pipeline 
easement land between the PUC and Hayward-Oliver 
Owners, LLC would result in no additional costs to the 
City (see Attachment II to this report). 

2. Mr. Garrett Dowd of the PUC notes that the proposed 
easement exchange does not diminish the PUC's capacity 
for installing future water or other utility pipelines. Mr. 
Dowd also notes that under the pipeline easement 
exchange, the PUC obtains 13,940 square feet of 
additional surface rights, which according to Mr. 
Chopping, is valued at a rate of $10 per square foot. 
Therefore the value of the 13,940 additional square feet 
which accrues to the PUC would be $139,400 (13,940 
times $10) according to Mr. Chopping. 

3. Mr. Dowd further states that a processing fee of $1,000 
was charged by the Department of Administrative 
Services to Hayward-Oliver Owners for processing the 
revocable permit which allowed their project to move 
forward while the easement exchange was being sought. 
In addition, to the $1,000 processing fee, a monthly fee of 
$1,990 has been charged to the Hayward-Oliver Owners 
by the PUC beginning in October of 2000 through the 
present, when the revocable permit commenced, resulting 
in a total charge of $22,752 being paid by Hayward-Oliver 
to the PUC to date. According to Mr. Dowd, the Real 
Estate Division will also assess Hayward-Oliver Owners, 
LLC a one-time fee of $2,500 for processing the documents 
of the proposed easement exchange. 



2 PG&E has notified the developer of the Hayward-Oliver property that the proposed development 
plans and new surface road would place too great a strain on their gas pipeline beneath the 
development area. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Parcel 7 — proposed ovrprpn^-^ ~ 






SQ&jrag-wff} 



L=50.QJ' 



°%E* TRUST 




■ PROPOSED STPFPT 

-7 PARCEL 2 

(72.20 fest i; ds) 

■ P.O.C-, 




Artacrupf.nt II 

Jity and County of San Francisco Real Estate Division 

Administrative Services Department 

August 16, 2000 



RE: Oliver Trust Land 
Hayward 

Garrett Dowd 

Director, Bureau of Commercial Land Management 

Public Utilities Commission 

1155 Market Street, 5* Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Gary: 

As you requested, this office toured the PUC pipeline easement that passes through the Oliver 
Trust property in Hayward. The property developer, Joe Callahan, was at the site and 
explained that he wanted to exchange a section of the westerly 20-ft of PUC easement land for 
a similar 20-ft section along the easterly side of the PUC easement, at no cost to the PUC. 
That would allow a relocation of a section of PG&E high-pressure gas line. 

We find that the exchange of a section of land along the westerly side of the PUC easement for 
a si m il ar strip along the easterly side, as proposed by the developer, appears to be a fair and 
equitable exchange. We understand that "there will be no cost to the City and that the 
developer will place a steel encasement under a street embankment so there will be no 
additional cost for any future installation of a water pipeline. The granting of surface rights to 
the PUC for placement of a future pumping station is a benefit to the City. We understand 
that the developer is paying a monthly fee to the PUC under a temporary revocable permit and 
we recommend an additional S2,500 fee be paid by the developer to reimburse City for the 
admin istrative costs associated with this proposed exchange. 

Please advise us if you wish us to proceed with legislation for Board of Supervisors 
consideration. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ken Chopping 
of this office, at 554-9862. 

Sincerely, 



. Anthony J. DeLucchi 
Director of Property 



kc 



1 

/Jjri t-p.j m «r-« '1(1 / **" 

£15)554-9850 Office of the Director of Property «|Cr 

FAX: (415) 552-9216 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 ' San Francisco, 94102 



R;\u^^KK^S3soo^^w»^Aroh?ucJix 



TOTftL P. as 
39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 7. 8, and 9 - Files 01-1649, 01-1650, and 01-1651 

Department: Mayor's Office of Economic Development (MOED) 

Division of Real Estate (DRE) 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item: File 01-1649 

Resolution approving and authorizing an agreement 
between the City and County of San Francisco and the 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Under this 
agreement, the SFRA would purchase from the City two 
Central Freeway land parcels and would have the option 
to purchase five Central Freeway land parcels to 
construct affordable housing. The resolution would also 
adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental 
Quality Act, and that the conveyance is consistent with 
the City's General Plan and eight priority policies of City 
Planning Code Section 101.1. The resolution would also 
authorize the Director of Property to execute documents 
and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. 

File 01-1650 

Resolution approving and authorizing agreements 
between the City and adjacent property owners for the 
purchase by the adjacent property owners from the City 
at fair market value portions of three Central Freeway 
land parcels and for the exchange between an adjacent 
property owner and the City of a portion of one Central 
Freeway land parcel. The resolution would also adopt 
findings pursuant to the California Environmental 
Quality Act and that the conveyance is consistent with 
the City's General Plan and eight priority policies of City 
Planning Code Section 101.1. The resolution would also 
authorize the Director of Property to execute documents 
and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. 

File 01-1651 

Resolution endorsing the strategy for development of 
certain real property formerly occupied by the Central 
Freeway and the issuance of Requests for Proposals 
(RFPs) to private developers for construction of market 
rate housing, including a requirement to construct 15 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

percent of the housing as affordable housing, on two 
Central Freeway land parcels. 

Description: In 1999 the San Francisco voters approved Proposition I, 

supporting (a) demolition of the Central Freeway, which 
had been damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, 
and (b) the creation of a new five-block thoroughfare along 
Octavia Boulevard. Proposition I directed the City to 
establish uses for the freeway parcels through a public 
planning process, emphasizing construction of market- 
based and affordable housing 1 . 

In 1999, the California State Legislature passed Senate 
Bill (SB) 798, amending the California Streets and 
Highway Code by adding Section 72.1, and directing the 
State of California Department of Transportation 
(Caltrans) to transfer title for the Central Freeway 
parcels to the City to implement Proposition I. As a 
result of SB 798, the City and Caltrans executed a 
Cooperative Agreement in December of 2000 to transfer 
title for the Central Freeway parcels to the City. Under 
the Cooperative Agreement, Caltrans is responsible for 
removing the elevated freeway structure north of Market 
Street and construction of new freeway ramps to Market 
Street. The City is responsible for construction of Octavia 
Boulevard roadway from Market Street to Hayes Street 
and all related costs, which are to be funded with 
proceeds generated from the disposition of the former 
Central Freeway land parcels. 

In January of 2001, Caltrans conveyed the 23 Central 
Freeway land parcels to the City and the City recorded 
the deeds for all 23 parcels. Caltrans retained an 
easement for 10 of the 23 parcels, parcels M through V, 
which have remaining freeway structures. Caltrans 
estimates that demolition of the remaining freeway 
structures will be completed by 2004. 

MOED, in conjunction with the Planning Department the 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA), the 



1 Affordable housing includes (a) owner-occupied units available to households with annual net 
income equal to or less than the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area median income of 
$80,100, and (b) rental units available to low-income households with annual net income equal to 60 
percent of the median income of $80,100, adjusted for household size. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Division of Real Estate (DRE), the Department of Public 
Works (DPW), and the City Attorney's Office, has 
prepared the Octavia Boulevard Development Strategy, 
after completing an extensive community planning 
process. The four goals of the Octavia Boulevard 
Development Strategy are to: 

(a) construct Octavia Boulevard from Market Street to 
Hayes Street, providing both a cross town vehicular 
throughway and a local throughway for pedestrians, 
bicycles and local traffic; 

(b) remove the barrier of the elevated freeway; 

(c) construct the maximum number of housing units on 
the vacant freeway parcels (an estimated 750 to 900 
new apartment units); and 

(d) designate at least 50 percent of the new apartment 
units as affordable housing. 

The Octavia Boulevard Project would include (a) 
demolition by Caltrans of remaining freeway structures 
on 10 of the 23 Central Freeway land parcels, (b) 
purchase of two Central Freeway land parcels from the 
City by SFRA and the option to purchase five Central 
Freeway land parcels from the City by SFRA to construct 
affordable housing, for a total of seven of the 23 Central 
Freeway land parcels, and (c) purchase of 16 of the 23 
Central Freeway land parcels from the City by private 
developers to construct market rate housing (including a 
minimum of 15 percent affordable housing). The City 
would be responsible for construction of Octavia 
Boulevard from Market Street to Hayes Street to provide 
a cross-town vehicular throughway and a local 
throughway for pedestrians, bicycles, and local traffic. 
The Octavia Boulevard Project would be implemented in 
three phases, disposing of the 23 freeway land parcels, 
totaling 306,336 square feet, in each of the three phases. 
The three subject resolutions (Files 01-1649, 01-1650, and 
01-1651) are Phase I of the Octavia Boulevard Project. In 
Phases II and III, the City would sell the remaining 14 
Central Freeway land parcels to private developers to 
construct market rate housing, including the requirement 
that 15 percent of the housing units constructed are 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

affordable housing. 2 The "Agreements to Transfer Real 
Estate" for the sale of the 14 Phase II and Phase III land 
parcels would be subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

Attachment I of this report is a map of the 23 parcels. 
Construction of Octavia Boulevard will begin in Phase III. 
DPW expects that the construction of Octavia Boulevard 
will take 12 months, beginning in May of 2005 and 
completing in May of 2006. DPWs preliminary estimates 
of the total Octavia Boulevard Project costs, which include 
design, engineering, construction, and traffic re-routing, 
are approximately $36,454,850 (see Comment 3). 
According to Mr. Richard Hillis of MOED, these costs 
would be funded wholly from the proceeds of the sale of 
the 23 freeway land parcels to SFRA and to the private 
developers and lease revenues from 14 existing parking 
leases, totaling approximately $46,940,015 ($43,603,645 
in estimated proceeds from the sale of 23 land parcels 
plus $3,336,370 from lease revenues for 14 existing leases 
located on the subject Central Freeway land parcels, as 
discussed in Comment 2 below). If the Octavia Boulevard 
Project costs were to exceed the sale and lease proceeds 
from the subject Central Freeway land parcels, any need 
for additional revenues, including General Fund 
revenues, would be subject to approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Approval of the three proposed resolutions would 
authorize the City to implement Phase I of the Octavia 
Boulevard Project. 

Comments: 1. As previously noted, in May of 2000 the Board of 

Supervisors approved a resolution, authorizing DRE and 
DPW to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with 
Caltrans to purchase the 23 freeway land parcels and 
placing the subject property under DPW jurisdiction (File 



2 In Phase I, the SFRA would purchase two land parcels and have the option to purchase five land 
parcels, for a total of seven of the 23 Central Freeway land parcels and private developers would 
purchase two of the 23 Central Freeway land parcels (for a total of nine land parcels in Phase I, 
including the purchase of two land parcels and the option to purchase five land parcels by the SFRA, 
and the purchase of two land parcels by private developers). In Phases II and III, the City would sell 
the remaining 14 of the 23 Central Freeway land parcels to private developers to construct market 
rate housing. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

A3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



00-0667). Section 72. 1 of the California Streets and 
Highway Code provides that: 

(a) The right-of-way between Market and Turk Streets, 
which comprise the damaged Central Freeway was no 
longer a State highway; 

(b) Caltrans is required to remove the Central Freeway 
structure and convey to the City those parcels of land 
that were no longer required for right-of-way 
purposes; 

(c) The City is required to use the proceeds from any sale 
of the right-of-way parcels of land for the purpose of 
designing, constructing, developing and maintaining 
the Octavia Boulevard Project; and 

(d) The City is required to accept all liabilities for the 
subject freeway parcels. 

The Cooperative Agreement between the City and 
Caltrans authorized the title transfer of the 23 freeway 
parcels to the City. Caltrans also assigned to the City 14 
existing leases for parking lots located on the subject 
parcels on January 1, 2001. Attachment II, provided by 
DRE, is a list of the 14 existing parking leases, including 
the monthly rent of each of the parking leases, totaling 
$65,420 monthly for all 14 parking leases or 
approximately $785,040 annually. The lease revenues 
are deposited into a DPW special project account, 
designated for the Octavia Bouldevard Project. 

2. Mr. Hillis estimates that the fair market value of the 
23 land parcels is approximately $43,603,645 
($28,000,000 for 16 market rate housing parcels plus 
$15,603,645 for 7 affordable housing parcels). 3 In 
addition, Mr. Hillis estimates that revenues for the 14 
existing parking leases shown in Attachment II will be 
approximately $785,040 in calendar years 2001, 2002, 
and 2003, and approximately $588,750 in calendar year 
2004 and $392,500 in 2005, totaling $3,336,370. 4 The 



3 The estimate of $43,603,645 is based on an appraisal of $18,750,000 for 8 parcels (parcels A, B, C, 
F, G, H, I, and J), totaling 125,748 square feet, conducted by Carneghi-Bautovich and Partners, Inc., 
(CBP), an independent appraiser under contract to DRE, and MOED's estimate of $24,853,645 for 15 
remaining parcels, totaling 180,588 square feet. 

4 According to Mr. Hillis, parking lease revenues in calendar year 2004 and 2005 will decline as the 
subject parcels are sold for construction of housing. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



total estimated proceeds from the sale of the 23 land 
parcels and rents from the 14 existing parking leases are 
$46,940,015 ($43,603,645 plus $3,336,370). 

3. According to Mr. Patrick Rivera of DPW, the current 
estimated cost for the Octavia Boulevard Project is 
$36,454,850 5 , as shown in Attachment III. Included in 
this cost estimate are: 

(a) $16,776,560 for Octavia Boulevard design and 
construction costs, 

(b) $12,460,532 for traffic management costs, including 
traffic systems management costs of $5,400,000, plus 
and traffic management plan costs of $7,060,532; 

(c) $2,085,500 for estimated direct costs to the City of 
constructing Octavia Boulevard, including DPW 
project management costs of $1,215,500, City Attorney 
fees of $70,000, environmental costs of $400,000, and 
repayment of Proposition B funds of $400,000 6 ; and 

(d) $5,132,259 for a 10 percent project contingency fund of 
$3,132,259 (10 percent of $31,322,591, see Attachment 
III) and maintenance of Octavia Boulevard for 3 years 
$2,000,000. 

According to Mr. Rivera, in April of 2002, DPW will begin 
construction of the Traffic Systems Management plan to 
connect traffic signals within the construction area and 
along travel routes to and from the freeways, adjusting 
signal timings as needed by traffic conditions. DPW will 
implement the Traffic Management Plan to manage 
traffic during the demolition and construction of the 
freeway and construction of Octavia Boulevard in July of 
2003. The design period for the Octavia Boulevard 
construction is scheduled from August 2002 through May 
2005, and construction of Octavia Boulevard is scheduled 
from May 2005 through May 2006. 

File 01-1649 

4. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 01-1649) 
would approve the proposed "Agreement for Transfer of 



5 This amount of $36,454,850 is the rounded value. 

6 In 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution (Resolution No. 99-17), providing $400,000 
of San Francisco Transportation Authority FY 1998-99 Proposition B Capital Program funds to DPW 
for resurfacing Octavia Boulevard, as part of the Central Freeway replacement project. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Real Estate" between the City and County of San 
Francisco and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 
for (a) the purchase by SFRA of two Central Freeway land 
parcels from the City and (b) the option to purchase by 
SFRA five Central Freeway land parcels from the City. 
Under the terms of the proposed Agreement, the SFRA 
would purchase two Central Freeway land parcels 
(parcels A and C) for up to fair market value of 
$5,775,000. However, the SFRA would pay less than the 
fair market value of $5,775,000 if the City's actual 
Octavia Boulevard Project costs, less the City's actual 
proceeds from the sale of the 16 market rate housing 
parcels and 14 parking leases, is less than $5,775,000. In 
that instance, the SFRA would pay the lesser amount. In 
addition, the SFRA would have the option to purchase 
five other parcels (parcels G, K, O, Q, and U) for the same 
terms as parcels A and C. The SFRA would pay up to the 
fair market value for all seven affordable housing parcels, 
currently estimated to be approximately $15,603,645. 
However, if the City's actual Octavia Boulevard Project 
costs, less the City's actual proceeds from the sale of the 
16 market rate housing parcels and 14 parking leases, is 
less than the actual fair market value, SFRA would pay 
the lesser amount. If SFRA does not exercise its option to 
purchase any of the five parcels, any parcel not purchased 
by SFRA would be sold to private developers to construct 
market rate housing units. Attachment IV, provided by 
MOED, discusses the reasons that the SFRA would pay 
less than fair market value for the seven affordable 
housing parcels if the City's actual Octavia Boulevard 
Project costs, less the City's proceeds for the sale of the 16 
market rate housing parcels and the 14 parking leases, is 
less than the fair market value. 

5. The table below summarizes the data pertaining to the 
fair market value of the seven affordable housing parcels. 
Carneghi-Bautovich and Partners, Inc., (CBP), an 
independent appraiser under contract to DRE, has 
provided an appraisal of the fair market value of three 
parcels (A, C, and G), but an appraisal has not yet been 
performed on four parcels (K, O, Q, and U). The 
estimated fair market value of the seven affordable 
housing parcels is approximately $15,603,645. The 
appraised fair market value for parcels A ($2,887,500) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



and C ($2,887,500) is $5,775,000, the appraised fair 
market value for parcel G is $1,860,000, and MOED's 
estimated fair market value for parcels K, O, Q, and U is 
approximately $7,968,645, ($5,775,000 plus $1,860,000 
plus $7,968,645, totaling $15,603,645). 

The City has not yet conducted an appraisal on four of the 
seven affordable housing parcels and the actual fair 
market value of the seven affordable housing parcels will 
vary from the estimate of $15,603,645 once the appraisals 
are completed. Under the terms of the proposed 
Agreement, DRE will conduct an appraisal of the four 
parcels once the City has full legal authority to dispose of 
these parcels and prior to the sale of the parcels to the 
SFRA (see Comment 6). 



Parcel 


Location 


Square . 
Footage/ 


Purchase or 
Option to 
Purchase 


Fair Market - 
Value v : 


A* 


Southeast corner of 
Turk and Gough Streets 


16,500 sq.ft. 


Purchase 


$2,887,500 
$175/ sq.ft. 


C 


Southwest corner of 
Franklin Street and 
Golden Gate Avenue 


16,500 sq. ft. 


Purchase 


$2,887,500 
$175/ sq.ft. 


G 


Northeast corner of 
Gough and Fulton 
Streets 


12,370 sq. ft. 


Option to 
purchase 


$1,860,000 
$150/ sq.ft. 


K** 


Octavia Street between 
Hayes and Linden 
Streets 


11,460 sq. ft. 


Option to 
purchase 


$1,547,100 (est.) 
$135/ sq.ft. (est.) 


O 


Octavia Street between 
Fell and Hickory Streets 


37,427 sq. ft. 


Option to 
purchase 


$5,052,645 (est.) 
$135/ sq. ft. (est.) 


Q 


Northwest corner of Oak 
and Octavia Streets 


4,650 sq. ft. 


Option to 
purchase 


$627,750 (est.) 
$135/ sq. ft. (est.) 


u 


Octavia Streets between 
Rose and Haight Streets 


5,490 sq. ft. 


Option to 
purchase 


$741,150 
$135/ sq. ft. (est.) 


Total 


104,397 sq. ft. 




$15,603,645 (est.) 



* Excludes parcel A- 1, which is the subject of File 01-1650 of this report. 

** Excludes parcels K-l and K-2, which are the subject of File 01-1650 of this report. 

6. Under the terms of the Agreement, before the City can 
give notice to SFRA that SFRA has the option to purchase 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



the five additional parcels, the City would need to meet 
the following three conditions: 

(a) The City would have to acquire the full legal authority 
to dispose of and develop the subject parcels. 
Currently, parcels O, Q, and U have remaining 
freeway structures and the City does not have the full 
authority to dispose of these parcels until the freeway 
structures are removed by Caltrans. 

(b) The City would have to restructure the subject parcels 
to create regularly shaped parcels. Currently, parcels 
G and K are irregularly shaped and the City needs to 
subdivide and sell portions of parcels G and K to 
create regular shaped parcels 7 . The subdivision and 
sale of portions of parcel K (K-l and K-2) to create a 
regular shape parcel are the subject of this report (File 
01-1650, see Comment 11). 

(c) Once the freeway structures are removed from parcels 
O, Q, and U and parcels G and K are reassembled to 
become regular shaped parcels, the City would have to 
gain a formal appraisal of parcels K, O, Q, and U to 
determine the fair market value. 

7. Under the terms of the proposed Agreement for 
Transfer of Real Estate between the City and SFRA, the 
City would lease back from the SFRA, on a month-to- 
month basis for $1 per month, parcels A, C, G, and K. 
The Agreement states that the City may continue to 
sublease these parcels as parking lots, which is their 
current use. Attachment III shows the respective existing 
leases and rents for parcels A, C, G, and K, totaling 
$25,113 monthly or $310,356 annually. 

8. According to Ms. Kate Hartley of SFRA, the SFRA 
proposes to build 200 affordable senior housing apartment 
units on parcels A and C. The SFRA would issue RFPs to 
solicit private developers to construct the affordable 
senior housing apartment units. The proposed 
developments would be funded with a combination of tax- 
exempt multi-family revenue bonds, subject to Board of 



7 Parcel G is 13,790 square feet, of which 12,370 has been appraised by CBP at $1,860,000 (or $150 
per square foot) and 1,420 square feet would be subdivided. The triangular shaped 1,420 square foot 
portion is currently leased by the San Francisco Parking Authority and is adjacent to land owned by 
the Parking Authority and used as the Performing Arts Parking Garage. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Supervisors approval, and 4 percent low-income housing 
tax credits. 

File 01-1650 

9. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 01-1650) 
would authorize Land Sale Agreements between the City 
and adjacent property owners for the sole source sale of 
portions of three Central Freeway land parcels by the 
City to the adjacent property owner and for the exchange 
of a portion of one Central Freeway land parcel between 
the City and the adjacent property owner. According to 
Mr. Ken Chopping of DRE, the values of the three parcel 
portions to be sold by the City to the adjacent property 
owners are discounted due to their small size and 
irregular shape. As discussed in Comment 10, the DRE 
was able to negotiate a higher price per square foot than 
the discounted price for each of the three parcel portions, 
by selling the portions to the adjacent property owners. 
Additionally, the City would exchange a portion of one 
Central Freeway land parcel (parcel H) with an equal size 
portion of the adjacent property to create two more 
regularly shaped lots. Total proceeds to the City would be 
$659,875. The table below provides a summary of the 
subject parcels. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Parcel 


Location 


Square 
Feet 


Sale 
Price 


Purpose of Sale 


A-l 


Elm Street 
between Gough 
and Franklin 
Streets 


1,810 


$270,000 
$149/sq. ft. 


A-l is a triangle-shaped parcel. Sale 
to the owner of the adjacent lot 
would create two rectangular parcels 
(parcel A and the adjacent lot). 


K-l 


Hayes Street 


59 


$7,375 
$125/sq. ft. 


K-l is a triangle-shaped parcel. Sale 
to the owner of the adjacent lot 
would create a rectangular lot for 
the buyer and (along with the sale of 
K-2) would create a rectangular lot 
for parcel K 


K-2 


Hayes Street 


980 


$182,500 
$186/sq. ft. 


K-2 is a triangle-shaped parcel. Sale 
to the owner of the adjacent lot 
would create a rectangular lot for 
the buyer and (along with the sale of 
K-l) would create a rectangular lot 
for parcel K 


H 


Gough and Grove 
Streets 


approx. 
2,500 


$200,000 


A triangle-shaped portion of parcel 
H, equal to approximately 2,500 
square feet, would be exchanged for 
a portion of the adjacent lot of equal 
size to create two regularly shaped 
lots. Because the proposed exchange 
would increase the appraised value 
of parcel H by $200,000 and of the 
adjacent lot by $400,000, the owner 
would pay to the City the difference 
in value of $200,000. 


Total 




$659,875 





10. According to Mr. Chopping, the appraised value of 
parcel A is $175 per square foot. However, the appraisal 
performed by CBP discounted parcel A-l, which is a 
portion of parcel A, to $90 per square foot because of the 
irregular shape. Mr. Chopping states that the sales price 
of $270,000 was based on a negotiated sales price per 
square foot of $149 per square foot for 1,810 square feet. 
Mr. Chopping states that the sales price of $7,375 for 
parcel K-l and $182,500 for parcel K-2 were based on a 
negotiated sales price of $125 per square foot for parcel K- 
1 and $186 per square foot for K-2. The exchange of a 
triangle shape portion of parcel H, equal to approximately 
2,500 square feet, for a portion of the adjacent lot would 
result in two regular-shaped lots for parcel H and the 
adjacent lot. According to Mr. Chopping, because the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



proposed exchange would increase the appraised value of 
parcel H by $200,000 and of the adjacent lot by $400,000, 
the owner would pay to the City the difference in value of 
$200,000. 

11. Under the terms of the Land Sales Agreements 
between the City and the respective property owners, as a 
condition of the sale of each of the four parcels, the City 
would require that 15 percent of all housing developed on 
the entire lot (the original lot plus the added parcel) 
would be developed as affordable housing. 

File 01-1651 

12. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 01-1651) 
would endorse the Development Strategy for the Octavia 
Boulevard Project and authorize DRE to issue two RFPs 
to private developers for the sale and development of 
market rate housing on parcels H and J. Fifteen percent 
of the housing units developed on these parcels would be 
affordable housing units. 

13. Parcel J is 17,898 square feet, located on the north 
side of Hayes Street between Octavia and Gough Streets, 
with an appraised value of $2,400,000. 8 The RFP solicits 
a private developer to construct a mix of retail units 
serving the neighborhood and residential units. The RFP 
requires that a minimum of 15 percent of the apartment 
units be constructed as affordable housing units. The 
minimum allowable bid for parcel J under the RFP is 
$2,250,000. Selection of the developer would be based on 
the economic return to the City from the development 
(including the sale price), overall appropriateness of the 
proposal, and the developer's financial strength, 
experience, and ability to perform the project. 

14. Parcel H is 11,269 square feet, located on the 
northwest corner of Grove and Gough Streets. The 
proposed parcel development would include neighborhood- 
based retail units and residential units. The RFP requires 
that a minimum of 15 percent of the apartment units are 
constructed as affordable housing units. The appraised 



8 The appraisal of parcels J and H were conducted by Carneghi-Bautovich and Partners, Inc., (CBP), 
an independent appraiser under contract to DRE. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



fair market value of parcel H is $1,800,000 and the 
minimum acceptable bid under the RFP is $1,600,000. 
Selection criteria would be the same as those noted above 
for selecting a developer for parcel J. 

15. In order to ensure that all subsequent purchases of 
the Central Freeway land parcels will include the 
requirement that 15 percent of the housing units are 
affordable housing, the Budget Analyst recommends: 

(a) Amending File 01-1651, Page 3, Line 4, to add the 
phrase " including a requirement to construct a 
minimum of 15 percent of the housing units as 
affordable housing " and Page 3, Line 6, to add the 
phrase " which includes a requirement to construct a 
minimum of 15 percent of the housing units as 
affordable housing ", so that the resolution states, 
"Whereas, the City proposes to subsequently issue 
RFPs for development of the remaining Market Rate 
Housing Parcels in substantially the same form, 
including a requirement to construct a minimum of 15 
percent of the housing units as affordable housing , as 
the RFP on file with the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors in File No. 01-1651 or to otherwise 
dispose of the parcels through a bid process, which 
includes a requirement to construct a minimum of 15 
percent of the housing units as affordable housing. 
following the completion of the Department of City 
Planning's Better Neighborhood 2002 Program"; and 

(b) Amending File 01-1651, Page 3, Line 15, to add the 
phrase, " including a requirement to construct a 
minimum of 15 percent of the housing units as 
affordable housing, or to otherwise dispose of the 
parcels through a bid process, which includes a 
requirement to construct a minimum of 15 percent of 
the housing units as affordable housing, following the 
completion of the Department of City Planning's 
Better Neighborhood 2002 Program " so that the 
resolution states, "the Board of Supervisors hereby 
endorses the Development Strategy and authorizes 
and urges the Director of Property, the Director of 
City Planning, the Mayor's Office of Economic 
Development and the Executive Director of the 
Redevelopment Agency to take any and all steps to 
effectuate the Development Strategy, including a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

requirement to construct a minimum of 15 percent of 
the housing units as affordable housing, or to 
otherwise dispose of the parcels through a bid process, 
which includes a requirement to construct a minimum 
of 15 percent of the housing units as affordable 
housing, following the completion of the Department 
of City Planning's Better Neighborhood 2002 
Program ". 

16. According to Mr. Hillis, once the developers of the 
parcels J and H are selected through the RFP process, the 
respective Agreements to Transfer Real Estate would be 
submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as 
stated in the subject RFPs. The Agreements to Transfer 
Real Estate for all 16 market rate housing parcels would 
be subject to Board of Supervisors approval, pursuant to 
Administrative Code Section 23.1. 

17. The Budget Analyst also recommends amending File 
01-1651 to require that MOED, DRE, and DPW submit an 
annual written progress report to the Board of 
Supervisors, including (a) the current status of the 
Octavia Boulevard Project, (b) the estimated and actual 
proceeds to the City from the sale of the 23 Central 
Freeway land parcels and the 14 parking leases, and (c) 
the total estimated and actual Octavia Boulevard Project 
costs. 

Summary: 18. In summary, approval of the three proposed 

resolutions would authorize the following actions: 
• Approval of File 01-1649 would authorize an 
Agreement for Transfer of Real Estate between the 
City and SFRA. Under the proposed Agreement for 
Transfer of Real Estate, SFRA would purchase two of 
the 23 Central Freeway land parcels, and would have 
the option to purchase an additional five land parcels, 
for a total of seven land parcels, to construct affordable 
housing units. Under the proposed Agreement for 
Transfer of Real Estate, SFRA would pay the lesser of 
(a) actual fair market value for the seven land parcels, 
currently estimated to be $15,603,645, or (b) the City's 
actual Octavia Boulevard Project costs, less the City's 
actual proceeds from the sale of 16 market rate 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



housing parcels and 14 existing parking leases located 
on the subject Central Freeway land parcels. 

• Approval of File 01-1650 would authorize the sole- 
source sale by the City to adjacent property owners of 
portions of three Central Freeway land parcels and the 
exchange of a portion of one Central Freeway land 
parcel with the adjacent property owner. According to 
DRE, although the values of three of the parcel 
portions are discounted due to their small size and 
irregular shape, the DRE was able to negotiate a 
higher price per square foot than the discounted price 
for each of the three parcel portions, by selling the 
portions to the adjacent property owners. 
Additionally, the City would exchange a portion of one 
parcel with an adjacent property owner, and the 
adjacent property owner would pay the City $200,000 
for the increased value to the adjacent lot, resulting 
from the parcel exchange. Total proceeds to the City 
from the proposed sale of the three parcel portions and 
the exchange of one parcel portion would be $659,875. 

» Approval of File 01-1651 would endorse the Octavia 
Boulevard Project and authorize the issuance of two 
RFPs for the sale of parcels J and H to private 
developers to construct market rate housing units. 
The Octavia Boulevard Project consists of (a) the 
demolition by Caltrans of the remaining freeway 
structures on 10 of the 23 land parcels, (b) purchase by 
SFRA of two land parcels and the option to purchase 
by SFRA five additional land parcels from the City to 
construct affordable housing units, (c) purchase by 
private developers of 16 land parcels to construct 
market rate housing units, and (d) construction of 
Octavia Boulevard, including a cross-town throughway 
for cross-town traffic and a local throughway for 
pedestrians, bicycles, and local traffic. The RFPs for 
the purchase of parcels J and H by private developers 
require that the private developers construct a 
minimum of 15 percent of the housing units as 
affordable housing. The Budget Analyst recommends 
that the resolution be amended to require that all 16 
RFPs for the sale of the 16 market rate housing 
parcels contain a provision, requiring that the 
developer to construct a minimum of 15 percent of the 
housing units as affordable housing. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

• Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 23.1, all 
Agreements to Transfer Real Estate from the City to 
private developers for the 16 market rate housing 
parcels would be subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. If the costs of the Octavia Boulevard Project 
were to exceed the proceeds from the sale of the 23 
Central Freeway land parcels and from the revenues 
derived from the 14 existing parking leases located on 
the Central Freeway, any need for additional 
revenues, including General Fund revenues, would be 
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. 
However, as previously noted, according to Mr. Hi 11 is, 
it is estimated that the Octavia Boulevard Project 
costs are to be funded wholly from the proceeds from 
the sale of the 23 land parcels and the 14 existing 
parking leases. DPWs current estimate of the City's 
Octavia Boulevard Project construction costs is 
approximately $36,454,850, and DRE's current 
estimate of the City's proceeds for the sale of 23 land 
parcels and 14 existing parking leases is 
approximately $46,940,015. If these estimates hold up, 
then no General Fund subsidy or other funding 
sources for the Octavia Boulevard Project would be 
required. 

Recommendations: 1. In order to ensure that all subsequent purchases of the 

Central Freeway land parcels will include the 
requirement that 15 percent of the housing units are 
affordable housing, amend File 01-1651, as noted in 
Comment 15, as follows: 

(a) Page 3, Line 4, to add the phrase " including a 
requirement to construct a minimum of 15 percent of 
the housing units as affordable housing " and Page 3, 
Line 6, to add the phrase " which includes a 
requirement to construct a minimum of 15 percent of 
the housing units as affordable housing ", so that the 
resolution states, "Whereas, the City proposes to 
subsequently issue RFPs for development of the 
remaining Market Rate Housing Parcels in 
substantially the same form, including a requirement 
to construct a minimum of 15 percent of the housing 
units as affordable housing , as the RFP on file with 
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 01- 
1651 or to otherwise dispose of the parcels through a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



bid process, which includes a requirement to construct 
a minimum of 15 percent of the housing units as 
affordable housing , following the completion of the 
Department of City Planning's Better Neighborhood 
2002 Program"; 
(b) Page 3, Line 15, to add the phrase, " including a 
requirement to construct a minimum of 15 percent of 
the housing units as affordable housing, or to 
otherwise dispose of the parcels through a bid process, 
which includes a requirement to construct a minimum 
of 15 percent of the housing units as affordable 
housing, following the completion of the Department of 
City Planning's Better Neighborhood 2002 Program " 
so that the resolution states, "the Board of Supervisors 
hereby endorses the Development Strategy and 
authorizes and urges the Director of Property, the 
Director of City Planning, the Mayor's Office of 
Economic Development and the Executive Director of 
the Redevelopment Agency to take any and all steps to 
effectuate the Development Strategy, including a 
requirement to construct a minimum of 15 percent of 
the housing units as affordable housing, or to 
otherwise dispose of the parcels through a bid process, 
which includes a requirement to construct a minimum 
of 15 percent of the housing units as affordable 
housing, following the completion of the Department of 
City Planning's Better Neighborhood 2002 Program ". 

2. Amend File 01-1651, as noted in Comment 17, to 
require that MOED, DRE, and DPW submit an annual 
written progress report to the Board of Supervisors, 
including (a) the current status of the Octavia Boulevard 
Project, (b) the estimated and actual proceeds to the City 
from the sale of the 23 Central Freeway land parcels and 
the 14 parking leases, and (c) the total estimated and 
actual Octavia Boulevard Project costs. 

3. Approval of Files 01-1649 and 01-1650 are a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

4. Approval of File 01-1651, as amended, is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 10, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Attachment I 
Pape 1 of 3 



hi 

g 



V 

52 



il 



►"d 



o 

W Q 



£ 



►x! 



§ w 
Q 



w a 

Si 

8| 

o| 



GO 





ELUST. 




1 - x 

1 
1 

1 


NT 


V." * \ 
w£ \. 



"I 

I 
I 

..J 
"""1 

I 
I 

..J 



GOLDEN GATE AVS 




58 



r 



i © 



~i 



Attachment I 
'^age 2 of 3 



e 

o 

° >— ( 



^d 



td o 

03 



co 



59 



s 5 
ft 

is 

5" 



...J 
"""I 

i 
i 

I i 



WrU 





1 

I 

i 

J 
-p 

J 



a! 2z S s 
§1..— ...: 






: I 



ii r 

< : i 

II L 

™i r 

'! S ! 

I! L 



71 



$ i 



'J 



,j:B 



* mt JUT— 



F 

i 

«. u L 









F 



Attachment I 
i'age J of 3 " 



o 



§ a 



)-d ' 



O 



° 9 



GO 



[I : II 



> ■ I £ r 



3 



60 



s i; © 



X.U 






3 J 




«j 






5 


B Eg © 

> 


i. 



! 

Si 

s r 
t-B3r-4s 



r 

! I 
• I 

IL 






ir 

1 1 

: i 

IL 



i 
i 

I 



|i I©' Jf | 

lit rir 









ULTJt 




rar 9 
B. , 

|? !©' 




i 




(.-- SX «J 


r^r 



V: 



ir 

: i 
• i 

IL 



ir 

• i 

! I 

IL 



i 

i 

I 

i 



'J t 



fi 



! 

_ 8 = 
!S:e© 



3 » i 



gA I 

^2 



f . j> 
"? 
8 -5 

if 






J 



ocj — <msmvx lb: 41 



CCSF REAL ESTATE DEPT 



415 552 9216 P. 02/02 

Attachment II 



CENTRAL FREEWAY RELOCATION PROJECT 
SUMMARY OF LEASES-PHASE 1 



Parcel 

No. Lease-Lessee 


Monthly Rent 
Total Per SF 


Lease Term 
Start 


End-status 


A 


68SFRA 


$ 2,100 $0.30 


4-99 


3-31-01 mo/mo 


B 


01 Carpark Mgmt 


$ 4,200 $0.33 


7-98 


6-30-00 mo/mo 


C 


64 Federal Auto Parks 


$12,113 $0.50 


1-99 


12-31-00 mo/mo 


D 


02 Giannini (Long Term) 


$ 667 $0.20 


9-77 


08-31-32 




65 Giannini 


$ 1,200 $0.36 


10-99 


09-30-01 




66 Giannini 


$ 550 $0.48 


10-99 


09-30-01 


E 


3, 4, 53, 54 SFUSD 


4,090.60 $0.14 


1-76 


12-31-25(2074) 


F 


05 SF Opera 


$ 7,750 $0.43 


7-98 


6-30-OO mo/mo 


G 


06 SF Opera 


$ 5,400 $0.44 


7-98 


6-30-00 mo/mo 


H 


07 Safe Park Corp 


$ 4,900 $0.43 


3-00 


8-31-00 mo/mo 


I 


08 Safe Park Corp 


$ 7,200 $0.44 


10-97 


9-28-99 mo/mo 


J 


09 SF Symphony 


$ 6,400 $0.39 


4-99 


3-31-01 mo/mo 


K 


10 Safe Park Corp 


$ 5,500 $0.33 


3-98 


2-28-00 mo/mo 


L 


1 1 Safe Park Corp 


$ 3,350 $0.27 


4-98 


3-31-00 mo/mo 



Total Monthly Rent $65,420.60 $0.33 



Note: For leases on Parcels B, F, G, I, adjacent State-DOF land is also used by 
Tenant in common with City's land. 



H:\WF\DPW\5310CALTUleTrtaMl2.doc 



Real Estate 



TOTAL P. 02 



61 













Attachment III 




CENTRAL FREEWAY REPLACEMENT PROJECT 












OCTAVIA BOULEVARD 














PREPARED: 22-Jun-01 














Revised: 24-Aug-01 










Schedule 




Traffic Systems Management (TSM) 






240,000 


5,400,000 




Construction: 4/02 - 6/03 


Design 






Construction 






4,300,000 










Construction Management® 12% 
















of Construction 






645,000 










Design Support @ 5% of 
















Construction 






215,000 










Traffic Management Plan (TMP) 






5,448,764 


7,060,532 




Established by 7/03 


Traffic Control (PCO's) 






Engineering-Construction Support 






827,901 










Operational Changes for 3 Years 


Signal Su 
Signs 
Meter 
Paint 


pport 


142,000 












Public Information 














Program 














Contingency @ 10% 






641,867 











3CTAVIA BOULEVARD 



Design 

Construction 

Construction Management® 15% 

of Construction 

Design Support @ 5% of 

Construction 



1,170,766 
13,004,828 



1,950,724 
650.241 



Design: 8/02 - 5/05 
Construction: 5/05 - 5/06 



)PW PROJECT MANAGEMENT 


1,215,500 




:iTY ATTORNEY 


70,000 




1NVIRONMENTAL 


400,000 




REPAYMENT OF THE $400,000 PROP B FUNDS 


400,000 




;UBTOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 


31,322,591 . 



0% PROJECT CONTINGENCY 



3,132,259 



MAINTENANCE FOR 3 YEARS 



2,000,000 



OTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 



-me00000.xls 



Htcacnment iv 



Office of the Mayor 
San Francisco 




WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 



MEMORANDUM 



October 2, 2001 

To: SEVERTN CAMPBELL 

Board of Supervisor's Budget Analyst 

From: RICHARD HLLLIS 

Mayor's Office of Economic Development 

Re: Transfer Agreement with SFRA 



Per your request, I am providing you with a further explanation for the Transfer Agreement (the 
"Agreement") between the City and the Redevelopment Agency. 

The basis for the Agreement is the expressed intent of the City to insure that a substantial portion 
of the new housing developed on the central freeway parcels is affordable to low- and moderate- 
income households, while also fully funding the Octavia Boulevard project. This goal is 
pursuant to Proposition I (1999), the ongoing Better Neighborhoods community planning 
process, and the City's General Plan; all of which recognize the need to maximize affordable 
housing production, especially on publicly owned sites. 

Though available financing sources for affordable housing are extremely competitive, the 
Agency has been very successful in recent years in securing the funds needed to build and 
preserve a large number of affordable housing units in San Francisco. Central to securing such 
funding (e.g., 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Tax- 
Exempt Bonds, Project Based Section 8 Rental Subsidies, Multi-Family Housing Program funds, 
Affordable Housing Program grants, etc.) is the leveraging of City subsidies. The prospect of 
securing the land designated as affordable housing at below market cost or at no cost means that 
the feasibility of actually producing the affordable units is dramatically increased. Lower project 
costs also mean that developments can serve households with lower incomes, thus reaching the 
neediest San Franciscans. 

As the Agreement stipulates, the Agency is obligated to pay fair market value for the affordable 
parcels if the development of the Octavia Boulevard project so requires. If the Agency can 
secure the parcels for lower than fair market value, however, achieving the goals of the City 
regarding affordable housing development will be greatly facilitated. 

Please call me at 554.4082 should you have any further questions. 



1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, Room 200 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 

RECYCLED PAPER go 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, October 17, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 

011436 [Official Advertising] 

Resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division of the Office of Contract Administration to negotiate and enter 

into a sole source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle to be the official newspaper of the City and 

County of San Francisco for the category of consecutive day official advertising for the fiscal year ending June 

30, 2002. (Purchaser) 

8/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

8/22/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Judith Blackwell, Director, Office of Contract 

Administration; Michael Ward, Assistant Director of Purchasing, Purchasing Division, Office of Contract Administration. 

Continued to September 26, 2001. 

9/26/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Judith Blackwell, Director, Office of Contract 

Administration; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Edward Harrington, Controller; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board, Gregoire 

Hobson, Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors. 

Continued to 10/17/01. 

Hearing held. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; Michael Ward, 
Office of Contract Administration. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at ):44 PM M 1 3 M 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 1 7, 2001 



011561 ffflSS Contract Modification Approval - Addus Healthcare] 

Resolution approving the retroactive modification of the contract between the City and County of San 
Francisco and Addus Healthcare for the provision of In-Home Supportive Services for the period from July 1 , 
2001 to January 31, 2002, in the increased amount of $4,182,526, for a total contract amount of 521,379,697. 
(Human Services Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee) 

8/29/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Economic Vitality, Small Business and Social Policy Committee. 

10/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Hearing held. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Trent Rhorer, Executive Director, Department of 

Human Services; David Curto, Director, Office of Contract Management, Department of Human Services; 

Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Kim Kruser, Vice- President of Government Services for Western 

Region, Addus Healthcare; Marie Jovlin. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



011715 [Accept and Expend Federal Grant Funds Under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend grant funds in the amount of 
$23,849,790.00 from the Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of Airport Improvements: 
$15,525,000 to be expended by the Facilities Operations and Maintenance Division (A. LP 16, Project No. 01- 
1-3-06-0221-1601); and $8,324,790 for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Planning for 
Environmental Evaluation to be expended by the Airfield Development Bureau (A.I.P 17, Project No. 01-5-3- 
06-0221-0000). (Airport Commission) 
9/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Hearing held. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Peter Nardoza. San Francisco International Airport. 
Amended as follows: 

On page 1, at the end of line 10, by adding "placing $8,324, 790 on reserve. " 
On page 2, line 24, byreplacing "$11,820,000" with "$11,099,720." 

On page 3, line 3, by adding 'FURTHER RESOLVED, That funds in the amount of $8,324, 790 in FAA grant 
funds are hereby placed on reserve, pending an analysis of the timeliness of this project, selection of 
consultants, and submission of budget details, including the hourly rates and the estimated hours of the 
consultants. " 
AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend grant funds in the amount of 
$23,849,790.00 from the Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of Airport Improvements: 
$15,525,000 to be expended by the Facilities Operations and Maintenance Division (A.I.P 16, Project No. 01- 
1-3-06-0221-1601); and $8,324,790 for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Planning for 
Environmental Evaluation to be expended by the Airfield Development Bureau (A.I.P 17, Project No. 01-5-3- 
06-0221-0000); placing $8,324,790 on reserve. (Airport Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:44 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



October 1 7, 2001 



011774 [Reserved Funds, S.F. Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, S.F. Environment (State grant funds, File No. 01 1431: 

Resolution No. 647-01), in the amount of S6.75 million to fund the Power Booster small business energy 

efficiency retrofit program. (Environment) 

10/3/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 17, 2001 

meeting. 

Speakers: None. Continued to October 3 J, 200 J. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011359 [Reserved Funds, Department of the Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of the Environment (fiscal year 2001-2001 reserved 
appropriations), in the amount of S209,952 to fund the Solid Waste Management Program salanes as of 
October 1 , 200 1 . (Environment) 

9/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Hearing held. Speakers: Har\'ey : Rose, Budget Analyst; Jared Blumenfeld. Director, Department of the 
Environment. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $209,952 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010836 [Reserved Funds, Department of Elections] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Elections, (File 010249, Ordinance No. 65-01), in 

the amount of S800,000 to fund equipment purchase and 5251,000 for non-personal services. (Administrative 

Services Department) 

5/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/30/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ara Minasian, 

Department of Administrative Services; Tneresa Aivarez, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Kawa, Mayors Office; Ryan Brooks, Director, 

Administrative Services Department. 

Hearing held. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Edward 
Harrington, Controller; Tammy Haygood, Director of Elections; Ara Minassian, Department of 
Administrative Services. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011772 (Reserved Funds, Department of Elections] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Elections, fiscal year 2001-02 budget, in the 

amount of 52,015,719 (salaries - 51,716,830 and mandatory fringes - S298.889) to fund the Department's 

reorganization and staffing plans. (Elections Department) 

10/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 10, 2001 

meeting 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Tammy Haygood. Director of Elections; Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst: Allen 
Wilson, former Grand Jury Chairman; Chris Bowman, former member. Citizens Advisory Committee on 
Elections. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $2.015. 719 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:4$ PH on i 5 04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 17, 2001 



011773 [Reserved Funds, Department of Elections] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Elections, fiscal year 2001-02 budget, in the 
amount of $253,237 for the reapportionment project. (Elections Department) 

10/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 17, 2001 
meeting. 

Hearing held. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tammy Haygood, Director of Elections ; Chris 
Bowman, former member, Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 12:58 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 3:45 PM on 3/5/04 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



'.25 
7/ ci 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: 



■^Finance Committee 



October 11, 2001 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



FROM: -Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-1436 



OCT 1 6 23C1 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
September 26, 2001. 



Department: 



Items: 



Description: 



Department of Administrative Services, Office of Contract 
Administration, Purchasing Division 

Resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division of the 
Office of Contract Administration to negotiate and enter 
into a sole source contract for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 with 
the San Francisco Chronicle to be the City's official 
newspaper to provide Type 1 advertising which requires 
the newspaper to be printed at least five days per week, 
on two or more consecutive days. 

Proposition J, which was approved by the San Francisco 
voters in November of 1994, in part, changed the criteria 
by which the City selects a newspaper to publish the 
City's official advertising. The Purchasing Division 
advises that, under Proposition J, Section 2.81 of the 
Administrative Code was amended with respect to the 
criteria to be considered in evaluating bids submitted by 
newspapers that wish to be designated as the City's 
official advertising newspapers. Bidders are required to 
submit typeset samples and other documentation for 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



evaluation purposes. The criteria used for evaluation of 
bids under Section 2.81 includes (1) the cost of advertising 
in the newspaper (the newspaper which bids the lowest 
price per advertisement for advertising receives 
additional points), (2) the level of circulation of the 
newspaper (the newspaper with the largest circulation 
receives additional points), (3) the cost of the newspaper 
to the general public (any newspaper with a majority of 
circulation that is free of charge to the general public 
receives additional points), and (4) the ownership of the 
newspaper by a minority-owned, women-owned, or 
locally-owned business (newspapers which are owned by 
minority, women or locally-owned firms receive additional 
points). In addition, bidders must comply with all 
contracting requirements under the City's Charter and 
the Administrative Code, according to Mr. Mike Ward of 
the Purchasing Division. 

The City's official advertising is divided into two 
categories: 

Type 1 — Advertisements for Two or More Consecutive 
Days: Section 2.81, Official Newspaper(s) - Designation, 
of the Administrative Code defines Type 1 advertising as 
the publication of all official advertising of the City and 
County which is required by law to be published on two or 
more consecutive days, and all official advertising which 
is required to be published in accordance with the 
provisions of Sections 2.103 or 2.108 1 of the Charter for 
special meetings of the Board of Supervisors and its 
standing or special committees. The official newspaper 
must publish at least 5 days a week for Type 1 official 
advertising. 

Ty pe 2 - Advertisements for Single or Non-consecutive 
Days : Section 2.81, Official Newspaper(s) - Designation, 
of the Administrative Code defines Type 2 advertising as 
the publication of all official advertising of the City and 
County which is required by law to be published one time, 
other than the provisions of Sections 2.103 or 2.108 of the 
Charter as they relate to special meetings of the Board of 



1 Section 2.81, Official Newspaper(s) - Designation, of the Administrative Code references Charter 
Sections 2.200 and 2.201. Those Charter Sections have been renumbered as Sections 2.103 and 
2.108, respectively. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Supervisors and its standing committees; and all official 
advertising of the City and County which is required by 
law to be published more than one time, but not more 
than three times per week for a specified number of 
weeks. The official newspaper must publish at least 3 
days a week for Type 2 official advertising. 

The City's contract for Type 1 official advertising with the 
San Francisco Examiner expired on June 30, 2001. 
According to Mr. Ward, in response to its Invitation for 
Bids on March 31, 2001, the Purchasing Division did not 
receive any bids for Type 1 official advertising. Because 
no bids were received for Type 1 official advertising, the 
Purchasing Division has not made a recommendation to 
the Board of Supervisors regarding the award of the City's 
Type 1 official advertising for FY 2001-2002. However, 
according to Mr. Ward, the Purchasing Division contacted 
the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco 
Examiner in April of 2001, and both newspapers 
subsequently offered their services to provide the City's 
Type 1 official advertising in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Mr. 
Ward states that these offers to provide the City's Type 1 
official advertising in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 from the San 
Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner 
were made in response to an inquiry by the Purchasing 
Division and are not considered to be formal bids in 
response to an invitation to bid. 

This proposed resolution would authorize the Purchasing 
Division to negotiate and enter into a sole source contract 
with the San Francisco Chronicle to provide Type 1 
official advertising. 

As shown in the attached August 1, 2001 memorandum 
from Ms. Judith Blackwell of the Purchasing Division to 
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment II), the 
Purchasing Division reports that the San Francisco 
Chronicle would charge $8.42 per line of typeset for Type 
1 consecutive day official advertising in FY 2001-2002, 
which is $5.96 more or 242.3 percent than the $2.46 
charged in FY 2000-2001 by the San Francisco Examiner 
for Type 1 official advertising and is $1.29 more or 18.1 
percent more than the $7.13 per line of typeset that the 
Examiner would charge for Type 1 consecutive day official 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



advertising in FY 2001-2002. For FY 2001-2002, the 
Purchasing Division reports that the total estimated 
annual cost for Type 1 official advertising, which would be 
provided by the San Francisco Chronicle if this legislation 
is approved, is $88,743 for approximately eight months of 
Type 1 official advertising in FY 2001-2002 (assuming 
that official Type 1 advertising begins again in November 
of 2001) or $49,853 more than the cost for FY 2000-2001 
of $38,890 charged by the San Francisco Examiner for 
Type 1 official advertising for 12 months. 

Mr. Ward advises that the San Francisco Chronicle meets 
the Administrative Code requirements to be designated as 
the City's Type 1 official advertising newspaper. Such 
requirements include having a newspaper circulation of at 
least 50,000 copies per week, being published at least five 
days per week on two or more consecutive days, and being 
printed in San Francisco. However, according to Mr. 
Ward, the San Francisco Chronicle does not comply with 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code, pertaining to 
the City's Equal Benefits Ordinance. If the Board of 
Supervisors decides to authorize the Purchasing Division 
to negotiate and enter into a sole source contract with the 
San Francisco Chronicle to provide the City's Type 1 
official advertising, then the Purchasing Division would 
request a waiver of the Chapter 12B Equal Benefits 
requirements from the Human Rights Commission in 
order to enter into a sole source contract with the San 
Francisco Chronicle, according to Mr. Ward. 

Although, as noted above, the San Francisco Examiner 
has offered to provide the City's Type 1 official advertising 
in FY 2001-2002 at a rate of $7.13 per line, which is $1.29 
less per line than the price of advertising in the Chronicle, 
the Examiner is not printed in the City, as required by 
Section 2.80-l(a) of the Administrative Code. In that 
regard as shown in a memorandum provided by the 
Purchasing Division (Attachment I), the City Attorney 
stated that "the Examiner cannot continue to be the 
official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F." In addition, 
the San Francisco Examiner, as is the case with the 
Chronicle, is not compliant with Chapter 12B of the 
Administrative Code. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Although, according to Mr. Ward, the Purchasing Division 
has not recommended approval of this proposed 
resolution, Mr. Ward reports in a September 10, 2001 
memorandum (Attachment I) that "given the limitations 
of the Examiner, the City Attorney's opinion and 
applicable Chapter 12B regulations, there is only one 
viable option available to the City for Type 1 consecutive 
day official advertising - the San Francisco Chronicle" 
because, as stated in Attachment II, (a) this is an instance 
when no bids were received, (b) there are no other 
qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 
12B and (c) having a Type 1 official advertising 
newspaper is essential to the City and its residents. 

Comments: 1. As previously noted, the estimated costs for Type 1 

official advertising to be provided by the San Francisco 
Chronicle would be $88,743 in FY 2001-2002 for eight 
months, assuming that official Type 1 advertising begins 
again in November of 2001. Mr. Ward reports that the 
estimated cost for Type 2 official advertising is $1,305,878 
for FY 2001-2002 for 12 months. Therefore, the total 
estimated cost for Type 1 and Type 2 official advertising 
for FY 2001-2002 would be $1,394,621. 

2. According Section 2.81-2(a) of the Administrative 
Code, the City is required to withhold 10 percent of the 
annual amounts paid for the City's Type 1 and Type 2 
official advertising and to designate such monies in the 
City's Outreach Advertising Fund. 

3. Attachment I is a memorandum from Mr. Ward 
responding to questions raised by the Finance Committee 
at the Committee's meeting of August 22, 2001. According 
to Mr. Ward, and as previously noted, no formal bids have 
been received from the Chronicle or the Examiner to 
provide the City's Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising. Both newspapers have responded to an 
inquiry from the Purchasing Division by offering their 
services to provide Type 1 official advertising in FY 2001- 
2002. Although both the Chronicle and the Examiner do 
not comply with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code 
pertaining to the City's Equal Benefits Ordinance, the 
Examiner also does not comply with Section 2.80-l(a) of 
the Administrative Code which requires that the City's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Type 1 official advertising newspaper to be printed in the 
City. Given the limitations of the Examiner, the Chronicle 
is the only viable option available to the Board of 
Supervisors to be designated as the City's official 
newspaper to provide Type 1 consecutive day advertising, 
according to Mr. Ward. 

4. The City has not had a designated newspaper to 
provide for Type 1 consecutive day official advertising 
since the expiration of the City's contract with the 
Examiner on June 30, 2001. According to Mr. Ward, 
under Section 2.81 of the Administrative Code, the Board 
of Supervisors is required to annually designate a 
newspaper to provide for Type 1 consecutive day official 
advertising for the City. According to Mr. Ward, if this 
proposed resolution is not approved to award a sole source 
contract to the Chronicle, the City would have no 
newspaper, under contract, to provide for the City's Type 
1 official advertising for FY 2001-2002. According to Mr. 
Ward, the City could place consecutive day 
advertisements in both the official newspaper and other 
non-official newspapers, which comply with the 
contracting requirements under the City's Charter and 
Administrative Code. However, Mr. Ward further reports 
that the Type 1 official advertising could not be published 
exclusively in non-official newspapers. 

Although Attachment I notes that the non-contract rate 
for advertising in the Chronicle is $16.33, Ms. Andrea 
Rosato of the San Francisco Chronicle states in a letter 
dated May 3, 2001 to the Purchasing Division 
(Attachment III) that the City would not be required to 
sign a contract with the Chronicle to receive the $8.42 per 
line contract rate proposed by the Chronicle. In response 
to an inquiry from the Finance Committee, Mr. Ward 
advises that the Chronicle does not provide zone pricing 
for classified ads. Therefore, the price quoted for Type 1 
official advertising by the Chronicle of $8.42 per line for 
San Francisco circulation is the same price per line 
charged by the Chronicle for circulation in other locations 
in the Bay Area, according to Mr. Ward. 

5. At the request of the Finance Committee, Ms. Gloria 
Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, advises that she 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

has requested City departments to report to her as to 
their department's use of Type 1 advertising. Ms. Young 
reports that as of the writing of this report, the following 
departments have responded to her inquiry, indicating 
that they use Type 1 advertising: (1) the Board of 
Supervisors; (2) Administrative Services; (3) the 
Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA); (4) the 
Assessment Appeals Board; and (5) Arts Commission. Ms. 
Young states that the Board of Supervisors uses Type 1 
official advertising for election-related issues, including 
calling for incurred bonded indebtedness or fee or rate 
increases and the MTA uses Type 1 official advertising 
when the MTA revises rates, charges or fares. Ms. Young 
advises that the Board of Supervisors has had no Type 1 
official advertising since July 1, 2001. Mr. Ward advises 
that, since July 1, 2001, to his knowledge, no City 
departments have requested any Type 1 official 
advertising. 

6. According to Mr. Ward, last fiscal year both City 
departments and the Clerk of the Board placed Type 1 
official advertising directly with the California 
Newspaper Service Bureau (CNSB) which was the agency 
responsible for receiving advertisements, dispatching 
such advertisements to the designated official 
newspapers, proofreading such advertisements, 
confirming orders and coordinating invoices and 
payments to the official newspapers. With respect to 
invoicing, CNSB checked invoices submitted by official 
newspapers to verify that the prices charged were in 
accordance with pricing in the official advertising contract 
between the newspaper and the City. Mr. Ward further 
advises that CNSB services were paid for by the 
newspapers at no cost to the City. 

According to Mr. Ward, City departments were 
responsible for checking invoices submitted to the City to 
verify that the prices were in accordance with contract 
prices, verifying publication through ad proofs and 
approving invoices for payment by the City. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



City and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 



- u a,fre 1 o± 5 




Office of Contract Administrati 

Judith A. Black 
Dire 



September 10,2001 



Purchasing Di\ 



TO: 



THROUGH: 



FROM: 



RE: 



Anna Weinstein 

Budget Analyst's Office 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 




ft 



:: 
Pi 

: 



Michael D. 

Assistant Director of Purchasing 

Office of Contract Administration 

Official and Outreach Advertising Contracts 



I am pleased to respond to the questions contained in your email, dated August 22, 2001, 
regarding the City's official and outreach advertising contracts. Following, is a point by point response 
each of your questions. Supporting documentation is provided where appropriate. 

OFFICIAL ADVERTISING 

On March 31, 2001, the Office of Contract Administration - Purchasing Division published an invitati 
to bid for Type 1 Consecutive Day Official Advertising. Bids were due April 20, 2001 and no bids we 
received in response to this solicitation. 

1 . On May 2, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from the San Francisco Examiner 

expressing interest in providing advertising services to the City, at a rate of S7.13 per line for FY 21 1 
2002. A copy of this letter is appended to this memorandum, as Exhibit A. This letter was in rephp 
an inquiry by the Purchasing Division and is not a formal bid in response to an invitation to bid. 

On May 3, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from the San Francisco Chronicle indicais 
their willingness to extend to the City a bulk rate contract for advertising services, at a rate of S8.4^>e 
line for FY 2001-2002. A copy of this letter is appended to this memorandum, as Exhibit B. This 
letter was in reply to an inquiry by the Purchasing Division and is not a formal bid in response to ai 
invitation to bid. 



2. The "old" S.F. Examiner's contract rate for FY 2000-2001 was S2.46 per line. This is in reference 
the Examiner that was owned and published by the Hearst Corporation. 

3. On November 21, 2000, the Purchasing Division received a letter from Mr. James L. Clancy, Vice 
President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the San Francisco Newspaper Agency, agent of th 
San Francisco Examiner, stating that due to the purchase of the Examiner by Exln, LLC, beginning 



City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco CA 94102^685 Tel. (415) 554-6743 Fax (415) 554-' 11 
Home Page: www.ci.sf.ca.us/purchase/ Recycled paper ft E-mail: Purchasing@ci.sf.-" 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
3udget Analyst's Office 
page 2 

November 22, 2000, the Hearst Corporation had no legal authority to publish the Examiner. In 
addition, Mr. Clancy indicated that any future advertising with the Examiner would have to be 
negotiated with the Exln, LLC directly.. A copy of this letter is appended as Exhibit C. 

Following, the Purchasing Division had numerous conversations with Mr. Bob Haddad, Vice President 
of Circulation of the Examiner and the Examiner's General Counsel, to clarify matters relating to the 
contract and to convey the City's desire to resolve the matter expeditiously. In addition, the 
Purchasing Division provided Exln, LLC and its General Counsel with documents relating to the 
contract. On December 19, 2000, the Purchasing Division sent a letter to Mr. Haddad urging the 
Examiner to finalize their decision to honor the terms and conditions of the "old" Examiner's contract. 

On January 2, 2001, the Purchasing Division received a letter from Mr. Peter Herschberger, Vice 
President of Sales and Marketing for the Examiner, stating that the Examiner would agree to provide 
publication service for the City's advertisements under certain adjustments to the contract. A copy of 
this letter is appended to this memorandum as Exhibit D. Among other things, this letter stated that 
the "San Francisco Examiner is not printed within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco 
nor does it have plans to begin such printing in the foreseeable future." This was a matter of great 
concern to the Purchasing Division because Chapter IX, Section 2.80-1 (a) of the Administrative Code 
requires that the city's official newspaper be printed in the City and County of San Francisco. 

Subsequently, the Purchasing Division requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding the 
requirement to print in the City. On January 9, 2001, the City Attorney responded: "The answer is 

\ -T>clear - the Examiner cannot continue to be the official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F. 

; «j- There is no way to get around this, unless the Board wants to amend the law." The law 

referenced by the City Attorney is Proposition J, passed by the voters in November 1994 and 
■A incorporated in the Administrative Code as Article DC: Official Newspaper (s) - relevant part is 
■ Section 2.80-1 (a) "Official Newspaper". 

■ 

The Purchasing Division checked with the Office of the Clerk of Board of Supervisors and was 
advised that consecutive day official advertising was not used extensively by the Board and there 
was no need identified for this service in the balance of the Fiscal year. In consultation with the 
Purchasing Division, the Office of the Clerk of the Board decided that, to the extent possible, it 
would use the Independent as an alternate for publishing the city's official notices. Immediately, 
the Purchasing Division began to develop the new bid for official advertising scheduled for 
publication in March 2001. 

4. Circulation: Examiner, Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News: 





San Francisco 


Circulation 


Total Circulation 




All Days 


Sunday 


All Days . Sunday 


Examiner * 


35,000 


35,000 


52,000 52,000 


Chronicle 


128,935 


122,197 


530,125 551,286 


San Jose Mercury 


4,200 


3,200 


292,000 332,000 



Accacnment 
^age 3 of 5| 

Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 3 

sources: saisaraaffiK (audited) - » — — «™ 

* It should be noted that the Examiner has not been published on Saturdays since November 22, 2 

5. Pnce Per Line: Examiner, Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News: 

Per Line Rate p er Line Rate 

Non-Contract Contract 



6. 



Examiner C o -> n 

Chronicle *"°. S7 " 13 

o t 11 0.33 S8 4? 

San Jose Mercury News- No quote No ^ 



^NS^srsrit a pricc quote - ™ e ■— st - d » «- - J 

j o uucs noi quaury lor this contract because it is not DrintpH in tfc*. n;*, ro ^ 

nor is it adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation for" c" of te rZ ^ HI 
letter from the San Jose Mercury News is appended to this rnerno J,nL^ZlT "** 

The Purchasing Division presented the Chronicle as a "viable option" If it ic a. « 
Budget Analyst that we use the t Prm ,-no!o m , « J • ° P ' S the Preference of tht 

™»-ii i J' 01 lUcU we use trie terminology recommendation " in the future tn z^a c • 
will make certain to do so. rurure, to avoid confusion, 

SS5£32 t?r; e tTutilT 16, 2001 ^ c / ptures * e mtent of the p "* 

advertising: ° 1Utl ° n ** W2S lntroduced for Type 1 consecutive day official 

"The Purchasing Division suggests that the proposed sole source contract with a. r, • 
viable option because, as stated m the attached memorandum from the Purcr^it ^^ 
this is an instance when no bids were received (b) there are no X ai f a Hf ^ § ' ' 

are m compliance with Chapter 12B and (c) having a TypTl ofti d ad ££? "^^ ^ 
essential to the City and its residents " advertising newspaper i 

The Puxchasmg Division believes that Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code W nn - , M w 
Penaimng to non-apphcabihty, exceptions and waivers provides fcr^^SSSJ « J 

does not meet P^SS^S^JSSt EXammer - ^ San FranC1SC0 E *^ 

of San Francisco In aTdi^n th F newspaper must be printed in the City and Couy 

Code pertai^giotS SSfiT F^Z I" "? T'^ ^ ^^ 12B ° f the Adnnnistrat c 
r •* *i_ ° q uai oenents. f-urthermore, the Examiner is not Dublisherl m c, h j ,■ 

limits the newsnanpr'c ,k;i; h ,,„ ,,. , ., . , „ l puonsnea on Saturdays, whic 

newspaper s ability to publish the city's Type 1 consecutive day official ads. 



10 



Page ~~b bt 5 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 4 

Again, we highlight that the opinion of the City Attorney is: "The answer is clear - the Examiner 
cannot continue to be the official newspaper if it doesn't publish in S.F. There is no way to get 
around this, unless the Board wants to amend the law." The law referenced by the City Attorney is 
Proposition J, passed by the voters in November 1994 and incorporated in the Administrative Code as 
Article IX: Official Newspaper (s) - relevant part is Section 2.80-1 (a) "Official Newspaper". 

With. regards to the San Francisco Chronicle, this newspaper meets all Prop J requirements prescribed 
in the Administrative Code for the City's official newspaper, however, the Chronicle is not compliant 
with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

The Purchasing Division believes that given the limitations of the Examiner, the City Attorney's 
opinion and applicable Chapter 12B regulations, there is only one viable option available to the City 
for Type 1 consecutive day official advertising — the San Francisco Chronicle. 

OUTREACH ADVERTISING 

1 . The Purchasing Division had two alternatives for estimating the cost of outreach advertising for FY 
2001-2002. One was to prepare an estimate based on actual expenditures in FY 2000-2001. The other 
was to prepare a cost estimate based on the price per sample advertising submitted by each newspaper 
along with its bid. 

Based on the former analysis the projected cost for thirteen newspapers in FY 2001-2002 is 5206,067. 
. This was based on a price per line calculation over 12 months. We then adjusted for a planned 9- 
month usage for a projected total of 2153,500. 

We then obtained sample copies of advertising and noticed that these were based, in large part, on the 
following: 

a. Ads exceeding the 4" x 6" ad size required by the City 

b. Different type sizes and column widths 

c. Some prices are not as specif ed in outreach advertising contracts 

See, Exhibit F containing copies of actual ads published by outreach newspapers in FY 2000-2001. 

At the request of the Board, we also performed a different analysis of projected costs based on the bids 
only, taking into account: 

a. cost of the ad, based on price per line and number of lines per ad 

b. translation costs, where applicable 

c. number of ads that will be published by each newspaper in FY 2001-2002 

Surprisingly, the projected cost for thirteen newspapers, for FY 2001-2002 for twelve months under 
this new analysis is $142,488, or 598,694 for nine months. See Exhibit G, containing a copy of these 
two budgets. 

You also requested an explanation of the estimate cost of outreach advertising in FY 2001-2002. Our 
reply to this question is appended as Exhibit H 

11 



Page 5 o5 5~ 



Letter to Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Page 5 

2. A survey conducted by the Purchasing Division, during the week of August 27, 2001, shows that 
departments do both place ads through the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and place ads going 
directly to the outreach advertising newspapers. With regards to payments, departments respondec 
that payment for ads placed directly to the outreach advertising newspapers is through the departm 
own budget, and does not ever impact the outreach advertising fund. 

The California Newspaper Service Bureau (CNSB) - the agency responsible for coordinating billii 
for the outreach newspapers - indicated that they maintain two separate accounts for outreach 
advertising. One is for the weekly ad placed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the othe 
for ads placed by departments directly to outreach newspapers. 

The CNSB further stated that invoices for ads placed by departments are sent to the department pi; 
the ad. Adding that all payments for the Board of Supervisors' weekly outreach advertising are su 
to the approval of the Office of the Clerk of the Board. 

With regards to payments, the Office of the Clerk of the Board indicated to the Purchasing Divisic 
that they approve payments for the Board's weekly ad only. 

Source: Survey of departments conducted by the Office of Contract Administration, 08/27/01 
California Newspaper Service Bureau 

Please, see Exhibits I through M, responding to other questions in your email (Outreach Advertising. 
2 through 6) . 

We trust this memorandum answered all of your concerns. If you have additional questions or need r 
information, email or contact me at 554-6740. 



Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 



12 



Attachment 11 
Page 1 o± 3 



and County of San Francisco 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 



Purchasing Department 

Judith A. Blackwell 
Director 



Aueust 1,2001 



To: 



Through: 



From: 



Subject: 



Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

San Francisco Board of Suoervisors 




Judith A. BlackweJ. 
Director of Purcnas 



Assistant Director of Purchasing 
Purchasing Department 



Designating Official and Outreach Newspapers for FY 2001-2002 



The Purchasing Division is writing this letter in response to inquiries from members of the Finance Committee with 
regards to the designation of newspapers for official and outreach advertising services for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Official Advertising - Type 1 Consecutive Day 

Purchasing solicited but did not receive bids for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising. However, the San Francisco 
Chronicle offered its services to the City at a bulk contract rate of S8.42 per line. 

The Chronicle meets the Administrative Code requirements for an official newspaper, including circulation of 
50,000 per week, consecutive day publication and is printed in the City. However, the Chronicle is not compliant 
with Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. 

A sole source contract with the Chronicle is a viable option because this is an instance when no bids were received, 
there are no qualified newspapers that are in compliance with Chapter 12B and the contract is essential 'o the City 
and its residents. With regards to Chapter 12B, the Purchasing Division will request a waiver from the Human 
Riehts Commission. 



Tne following is the estimated advertising costs for Type 1 Consecutive Day Advertising for FY2000-01 and 
FY200 1-2002. 



Cost Per Line 
Estimated annual cost: 
Annual Cost Increase: 
Percent Increase: 





Chronicle 


Examiner 


Offer 


FY* 2000-2001 


FY 2001-2002 


S2.46 


S8.42 


538,890 


5133,114 




S 94,224 




243% 



H: , Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Tel. (41 5) 554-6743 Fax (41 5) 554-6717 San Francisco CA 94102-4685 

•c _ . _ _ 



Auracnment 
Jfap.e Z ot 3 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1, 2001 
Paae 2 



The contract rate of S2.46 per line in FY 2000-2001 was based on the Examiner circulation of 108 896 accordin 
to the Audit Report of September 30, 1999. The circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle for the oerio 
encung Marcn 3 1, 2001 are All Day 527,466 and Sunday 540,074. PCn ° 

The Chronicle's offer of S8.42 per line is a considerable saving off the ooen non-contract rate of SI 6 33 oer I, J 

rate ot S8.42 per line is the equivalent of a bulk contract rate. P ' lmC - 

It should be noted that the San Francisco Examiner also expressed interest in providing its services to the Cirv 
However, the Exarmner is not printed in the city as required by Article DC of the Administrative Code and has no 

S^nR?! S ° A T the f0reSeSabk fmm - fa addidon ' * c ExaminCT is not compliant with the requirements 
L-napter llti ot the Adrrumstrative Code. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit A, is the draft of a resolution authorizing the Purchasing Division to neeotiate 
source contract with the San Francisco Chronicle. negotiate 

Outreach Advertising 

The Purchasing-Division solicited bids for outreach advertising and received only four responsive bids - one fron 
Hispanic community and three from the Chinese community. 

Given the number of responsive bids received, only two communities mandated by Proposition J would have out 
advertising coverage in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. In addition, non-Prop. J communities -requested by the Board ii 
Kesoluuon No. 841-00, passed October 2, 2000- would not have outreach advertising coverage These are the R- 
Southeast Asian, Korean and Filipino communities. . - i nese are tn 

Given that the newspapers submitting responsive bids do not adequately serve all neiehborhoods the Board migl 
to authorize additional outreach advertising. As proposed, the maximum estimated cost of cost outreach advertis i 
fiscal Year 2001-2002 would be 5206,067. This amount depends on the number of outreach newspapers that wi-b 
authorized by the Board. The total estimated amount that will be available in the Outreach Advertising Fund in I c 
Year 2001-2002 is S241.392. Should the Board elect to authorize the proposed additional advertising commun 
coverage would be as follows: °' 

Community Outreach Newspaper 

Hispanic/Latino: E] Mensajero 

El Latino 
El Reportero 

Chinese China Press 

Chinese Times 
AsianWeek 

.African American San Francisco Bay View 

Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexuaLTransgender Spectrum 

Bay Area Reporter 
S.F. Bay Times 

14 






Attachment II 
Page 3 ofc 3" 



Letter to Gloria Young 
August 1,2001 
Pa°;e 3 



Comrnunitv Outreach Newspaper 

Russian Russian Life 

Southeast Asian Mo Magazine 

* Japanese Hokubei Mainichi 

* Not requested by the Board in Resolution No. 841-00. 

Appended to this letter, as Exhibit B is the draft of a resolution designating outreach advertising newspapers and 
authorizing the Purchasing Division to execute contracts with the designated periodicals. The Purchasing Division 
requests that this item be treated as an Amendment of the Whole and calendared for the Finance Committee meeting of 
August 8, 2001. 

On file, is a resolution (File No. 01-0867) designating the China Press to be outreach newspaper of the City and Count) 
of San Francisco for the Chinese community, and El Mensajero to be outreach newspaper of the City and County of 
San Francisco for the Hispanic community, for outreach advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. On 
05/30/01, the Finance Committee continued this item. And on 07/18/01, the Committee again continued the item, to 
the Call of the Chair. 

The Purchasing Division's contact persons for File No. 1-0867 and the proposed Amendment of the Whole, and 
official advertising resolution are: 

Mike Ward 554-6740 

Luis Espinoza 554-6736 

Please, advise if the Board needs additional information before the Finance Committee or Full Board meeting. 
The Purchasing Division looks forward to reviewing this matter with the Board. 

Exhibits: 

A. Resolution - Official Advertising 

B. Resolution - Outreach Advertising 



cc Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



15 



Attachment 



a Hearsl Newspaper 



May 3, 2001 



Andrea Rosato 

Call Center Manager 
C/oA«l)leri Aducnitlns 



City and County of San Francisco 

Purchasing Department 

City Hal], Room 430 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodleit Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Luis M. Espinoia 
Senior Purchaser 



Dear Luis: 

The San Francisco Chronicle is billing Id extend to the City and County of San Francisco the rate of S8.42 
per line, which is equivalent to a bulk contract level of 3,000 lines per quarter, or 12, 000 lines per year. 

This is a considerable saving off ihe open non-contract 2 x consecutive rate of S 16.33 per line. In addition, 
The City and County of San Francisco will noi be short rated if it docs not achieve the bulk contract 
performance of 3,000 lines minimum per quarter, and will nor be required lo sign a contiacL 

The contract rate thai was extended to the City and County for the term July 1 , 2000 through June 30, 200 1 
of S2.46 a line, was based on The Examiner circulation of 108.896 according to the Audit Report of 
September 30, 1999. Our most recent circulation figures for the San Francisco Chronicle released from the 
Fas-Fax for a six-month period which ended March 3 1, 2001 are: All Day, 527,466 - Sunday, 540,074. 
Also, we will continue to deliver ten Chronicle newspapers lo your office every Friday. 

Please contact me if you have a question. 

Sincerely, 



Andrea Rosato 

Call Center Manager 

San Francisco Chronicle 

AR/gc 



on, ninlon Strrtr • S«n Francisco - CA 94101 • ph.: (415) 777-7l0< ' '«: <1l5) 5J°M1°S ' pacer-. (^5) njo-ioji • «m«l|-. .vosjiooslc|\ronlclc.( 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - Files 01-1561 

Note: This item was transferred from the Economic Vitality, Small Business and 
Social Policy Committee Meeting of October 2, 2001. 

Department: Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Item: Resolution approving the retroactive modification to extend 

the contract between the Department of Human Services 
(DHS) and Addus Healthcare for the provision of In-Home 
Supportive Services (IHSS) for the seven-month period from 
July 1, 2001 to January 31, 2002, in an increased amount not 
to exceed $4,182,526, from a total contract amount of 
$17,197,171 to $21,379,697. 

Contract 

Extension Amount: Not to exceed $4,182,526 



Term of Contract 
Extension: 

Budget: 



July 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002 (seven months) 

Attachment I, provided by Mr. Joseph Huang of DHS, is a 
42-month (35-month existing contract plus the subject 7- 
month contract extension) budget for the total $21,379,697 
contract, from August 1, 1998 through January 31, 2002, 
identifying the $4,182,526 proposed modification for the 
seven-month period from July 1, 2001 through January of 
2002. 



Source of Funds: 



A combination of General Fund monies (22 percent) and 
Federal funds (78 percent). The sources of funding for the 
$4,182,526 modification to the existing contract, as provided 
by the Department of Human Services (DHS), are as follows: 



General Fund monies previously approved in 

DHS's FY 2001-2002 budget $920,156 

Federal funds previously approved in 

DHS's FY 2001-2002 budget 3.262.370 

Total $ 4,182,526 



Description: In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is an entitlement 

program which provides funding for low-income seniors and 
disabled people to receive non-medical personal care and 
other household assistance in their homes from visiting 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



workers. IHSS care can allow seniors and disabled persons 
to remain in their own homes and thereby avoid unnecessary 
and expensive hospitalization or institutionalization. 

IHSS services are provided by either independent providers 
or contracted providers. All IHSS services are funded by a 
combination of City General Fund monies and State and 
Federal Medicaid funds. In July of 1998, the Board of 
Supervisors approved two contracts for IHSS services, one 
with Addus Healthcare and one with the IHSS Consortium, 
for the 35-month period from August 1, 1998 to June 30, 
2001, with an option to renew for one additional year (Files 
98-934 and 98-935). 

According to Mr. Huang, since 1994, the contractual IHSS 
services have been divided into two separate contracts, one 
with Addus Healthcare, a private for-profit provider, and one 
with the IHSS Consortium 1 , a nonprofit agency, which is the 
other DHS contractor providing IHSS services. IHSS 
Consortium provides more intensive supervision. Addus 
Healthcare has provided IHSS services consisting of regular 
supervision which require less intensive supervision than the 
IHSS Consortium. Mr. Huang advises that both the Addus 
Healthcare and the IHSS Consortium contracts expired on 
June 30, 2001. However, Mr. Huang notes that two Request 
for Proposals (RFPs) were issued by DHS prior to the 
expiration of these contracts (See Comment No. 1). 

On July 23, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a new 
intensive supervision contract to provide IHSS services with 
the IHSS Consortium for the three-year period from July 1, 
2001 through June 30, 2004 (File 01-1092). However, 
according to Mr. Huang, a new IHSS contract which provides 
regular supervision IHSS contract services has not yet been 
awarded. The existing three-year contract with Addus, 
which was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
expired on June 30, 2001. 



1 The IHSS Consortium is an association of nonprofit agencies which includes the Independent 
Living Resource Center, Self-Help for the Elderly, Mission Neighborhood Center, Kimochi, Inc., 
Bayview-Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Services Center, Catholic Charities and Western 
Addition Senior Citizens Service Center. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Therefore, DHS is requesting retroactive approval of the 
proposed resolution, which would authorize a not to exceed 
$4,182,526 contract modification, to extend the existing 
$17,197,171 regular supervision contract with Addus 
Healthcare for a period of seven months, retroactive from 
July 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002, bringing the total 
contract amount to $21,379,697. The proposed seven-month 
extension with Addus would allow for the continuation of 
such regular supervision IHSS services for the period of July 
1, 2001 through January 31, 2002, pending negotiations with 
Addus and IHSS Consortium (see Comment 1) or a potential 
new RFP process to select a contractor to provide regular 
IHSS supervision services. The new contract is anticipated 
to begin on February 1, 2002. Mr. Huang states that the 
Human Services Commission approved the proposed seven- 
month contract extension with Addus Healthcare on August 
23, 2001. 

Under the first modification to the existing contract between 
DHS and Addus Healthcare, approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in June of 2001, the 35-month (August 1, 1998 
through June 30, 2001) contract with Addus Healthcare was 
increased by $2,308,327, from $14,888,844 to $17,197,171 
(File 01-1000). This $2,308,327 increase in the contract 
included: (1) an increase of $1,929,577 to reflect an increase 
in the average hourly wage to be paid to the Addus 
Healthcare IHSS contract workers, from $7.29 to $9.00, for 
the period from October 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000; and 
(2) an increase of $378,750, which provided for an increase in 
the average hourly wage of Addus Healthcare IHSS contract 
workers from $9.00 to $9.70, for the period from July 1, 2000 
through June 30, 2001. With the inclusion of benefits, 
training, travel, insurance, and administrative costs, as well 
as worker wages, the total hourly rate charged by Addus 
Healthcare to DHS under this prior modification increased 
by $2.94 or 21.6 percent, from $13.62 to $16.56, retroactive to 
October 1, 1999, and by $1.01 or 6.1 percent, from $16.56 to 
$17.57, retroactive to July 1, 2000. 

The total hourly rate to be charged to DHS by Addus 
Healthcare under the subject modification, which includes 
benefits, training, travel, insurance, and administrative 
costs, as well as worker wages, would increase by $1.55 or 
8.82 percent, from $17.57 to $19.12, retroactive to July 1, 
2001. The average hourly wage to be paid to the Addus 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Healthcare IHSS contract workers under the proposed 
contract modification would increase by $0.36 or 3.69 
percent, from $9.75 to $10.11, retroactive to July 1, 2001. 
These wages paid to the IHSS workers conform with the 
Minimum Compensation Ordinance, approved by the Board 
of Supervisors in September of 2000, which requires that all 
contracts and contract amendments approved after 
September of 2000 include an hourly wage of a minimum of 
$9.00 for such contract workers. In compliance with the 
Minimum Compensation Ordinance, and according to Mr. 
Huang, the subject IHSS contracts and contract amendments 
that are effective after July of 2001 must include hourly 
wages of a minimum of $10.00. 

Under the previously approved 35-month contract with 
Addus Healthcare, Addus Healthcare provided 375,000 hours 
of IHSS services per year or 31,250 hours per month. Under 
the proposed seven-month contract extension, Addus 
Healthcare would provide 218,750 additional hours of 
service, or 31,250 hours per month, which is the same 
number of monthly hours provided under the prior 35-month 
contract. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Huang, two separate RFPs for (1) a 

regular supervision IHSS contract and (2) an intensive 
supervision IHSS contract were initially issued in February 
of 2001. Attachment II, provided by Mr. Huang, lists the nine 
newspapers in which these two RFPs were publicized. Mr. 
Huang reports that two service providers submitted 
proposals: (1) IHSS Consortium and (2) Addus Healthcare. 
The IHSS Consortium bid on both the regular supervision 
IHSS contract, as well as the intensive supervision IHSS 
contract. Addus Healthcare bid only on the regular 
supervision contract. 

According to Mr. Huang, in April of 2001, the IHSS 
Consortium, the only bidder for the intensive supervision 
contract, was selected by DHS to be the service provider for 
both the intensive supervision contract and the regular 
supervision contract. However, the results of the RFP process 
for the regular supervision IHSS contract, which began in 
February of 2001, were contested by Addus Healthcare, as 
explained in the memorandum provided by Mr. Huang of 
DHS as Attachment III. This memorandum explains that 
DHS has initiated negotiations between Addus Healthcare 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



and the IHSS Consortium to determine if they can share the 
service load for their regular supervision clients. Mr. Huang 
advises that it is anticipated that these negotiations will 
produce a satisfactory resolution to the bid protest and will 
result in a contract that provides the optimal level of services 
for IHSS consumers. However, Mr. Huang advises that the 
proposed seven-month contract extension with Addus 
Healthcare is necessary in order to continue providing 
regular supervision IHSS services during this negotiation 
period. If the negotiations do not produce the desired result, 
Mr. Huang reports that the Department would then issue a 
second RFP to select the regular supervision IHSS 
contractor. 

2. As noted in Attachment I, under the proposed seven- 
month contract extension, Addus Healthcare would receive 
$13,262 in profit over the seven-month contract extension 
period, or approximately $1,895 per month. As shown in 
Attachment I, Addus Healthcare received profits of $14,809 
in FY 2000-2001, or an average of $1,234 per month. The 
proposed $1,895 in monthly profit represents an increase of 
$661 or approximately 53.57 percent over the current $1,234 
average monthly profit in FY 2000-2001. However, the 
proposed $13,262 profit for Addus Healthcare represents less 
than one-half of one percent of the total proposed contract 
modification of $4,182,526. 

3. In August of 2001, the Finance Committee tabled a 
proposed two-month contract extension with Addus 
Healthcare (File 01-1228). Under that proposed two-month 
contract extension, Addus would have received $57,301 in 
profits over the two-month contract extension period, or 
$28,650 in profit per month. The Budget Analyst had noted 
that Addus received a total profit of $42,948 for the three- 
year period of FY 1998-1999, FY 1999-2000, and FY 2000- 
2001. On an annualized basis, the total profit of $28,650 per 
month would have amounted to $343,800. If that $28,650 in 
monthly profit had been approved, such profit would have 
resulted in an increase in profits to Addus of $27,416 or 
2,221.7 percent over the $1,234 average monthly profit 
authorized in the third year of the previous 35-month 
contract with Addus. 

As noted in the Description above, under the proposed seven- 
month contract extension with Addus Healthcare, the total 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

hourly rate to be charged by Addus would increase from the 
current $17.57 to $19.12, an increase of $1.55 per hour, or 
8.82 percent. Mr. Huang explains that the $19.12 hourly rate 
to be charged by Addus Healthcare under this proposed 
seven-month contract extension reflects a negotiated 
compromise between DHS and Addus Healthcare, 
subsequent to the Finance Committee tabling the previously 
proposed two-month contract extension. Mr. Huang notes 
that the subject proposed hourly rate of $19.12 is $2.64 less 
per hour than the previously proposed $21.76 hourly rate for 
Addus Healthcare. Mr. Huang also notes that the DHS 
intensive supervision contractor, IHSS Consortium, currently 
receives $20.88 per hour to provide intensive supervision 
IHSS services, as compared with the proposed rate of $19.12 
per hour for regular supervision IHSS services for Addus 
Healthcare, or $1.76 per hour less than the IHSS Consortium 
contract. 

4. According to Mr. Huang, Addus Healthcare has been 
providing but has not been paid for these regular supervision 
IHSS services since July 1, 2001. Mr. Huang reports that in 
July and August of 2001, Addus Healthcare actually billed a 
total of 59,478 hours of regular supervision IHSS services. At 
a proposed rate of $19.12 per hour, this results in total 
increased costs of $1,137,219. Mr. Huang advises that if the 
proposed resolution is approved, Addus would be paid for 
these regular supervision IHSS services retroactive to July 1, 
2001. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

22 





A | B | C 


D 


1 


r I 


l H I i I J I 




2_ 
3_ 

4 


Document Dale: 8/22/01 
BUDGET MODIFICATION SUMMARY 




5_ 
6 




Contractor's Name 
ADDUS HEALTHCARE 








Contract Term 
8/1/98 - 1/31/02 




7_ 




Check Onel New Renewal 

f modification, Effective Date of Mod. 7/1/00 


Modification X 

No. of Mod. 3 






Modification Period 
7/1/01 - 1/31/02 




D 




Proqram: In-Home SuDOcrtive Services 


3URRENT YR 
1 


:URRENT YR 
2 


3URRENT YR 
3 


CURRENT 
TOTAL 




PROPOSED 
MODIFICATION 




NEW CONTRACT 
TOTAL 




m 




Term 


8/1/98 - 
3/30/99 


7/1 /99 - 

6/30/00 


7/1/00- 
6/30/01 


8/1/98 • 

6/30/01 




7/1/01 - 1/31/02 




8/1/98 - 1/31/02 




1? 




HSS Provider Wages 

Full Time 


$2.507. 864 


$3,231,956 


S3. 657. 346 


59,397.166 




12.211.724 




511.608.890 




13 




Part Time 


so 


SO 


$0 


SO 




SO 




SO 




14 
15 




HSS Provider Employment Taxes 
Social Security (PICA) 


S226.170 


S297.355 


5336.255 


S859.780 




5 206,188 




51,065.968 




16 


Federal Unemolovmt Ins (FUTAI 


S23.652 


$31,096 


$35,279 


S90.027 




S21.562 




Sill. 589 




17 


State Unemolvmt Ins ISUI) 


$73,912 


S97.175 


$109,91 9 


S281.006 




$21,562 




S302.568 




18 


State Disability Ins ISDI) 


SO 


SO 


SO 


$0 




SO 




SO 




19 


Citv Payroll Tax 


S44.347 


$53,305 


566,101 


$168,753 




S40.429 




5209,182 




20 


HSS Provider Worker's Compensation 


8310,429 


$397,400 


5454,460 


51,162.289 




8242,575 




SI, 404,864 




21 

?? 


HSS Provider Employment Benefits 

Vacation 


5130,059 


5166,994 


5186.634 


5483.687 




SI 48,480 




S632.167 




23 


Sick Leave 


$103,671 


SI 33,094 


5148, 7J7 


5385,512 




S141.550 




5527,062 




24 


Holiday 


567,752 


S107.926 


SI 24,377 


5300,055 




S63.550 




S363.605 




25 


Health Insurance 


$332,430 


5378,615 


5382,069 


SI, 093,1 14 




S245.140 




SI, 338. 254 




26 


Dental Insurance 


S67.053 


573.148 


573,148 


5213.349 




837.199 




8250,548 




27 


Pension 


$77,344 


5101,250 


5106,875 


5285,469 




564.874 




S350.343 




28 
29 


1HSS Provider Travel Costs 

Travel Waqes 


5147,124 


5188.907 


S211.125 


5547,156 




5129.969 




S677.125 




30 


Mileaqe 


568,915 


575,180 


575,180 


5219,275 




$61,250 




S280.525 




31 
32 


IHSS Provider Orientation/Skill Dev 
Traininq Waqes 


545,073 


558,114 


565,159 


5168,346 




S32.191 




5200,536 




33 


Trammq Staff/Consultants 


$2,596 


$2,832 


52,832 


58,260 




50 




58,260 




34 


Other Traininq Costs 


$0 


SO 


SO 


50 




SO 




$0 




35 

36 


Administrative Salaries 

Local Administration 


530,569 


S34.630 


535,913 


H 01.112 




532.136 




8133,248 




37 


Clerical 


S24.397 


S27.706 


528,754 


S80.857 




526,880 




S107.737 




38 


IHSS Supervisors 


5178,725 


S234.889 


5245.700 


S659.314 




$198,545 




$857,860 




39 


Salaries to Owners/Otficers/Dirs. 


50 


SO 


SO 


SO 




$0 




SO 




40 

41 


Administrative Taxes 

Social Security (FICA) 


S17.877 


522,738 


S23.565 


564.180 




$21,712 




585,891 




42 


Federal Unemplovmt Ins IFUTAI 


S1.870 


52,378 


52,464 


56,712 




$2,270 




58,983 




43 


State Unemolymt ins (SUM 


55,842 


$7,431 


57,701 


S20.974 




87,095 




S28.069 




44 


City Payroll Tax 


53,505 


$3,487 


S4.650 


511,642 




$4,257 




S15.899 




45 


Administrative Worker's Compensation 


$3,061 


53,894 


54,035 


510,990 




53,718 




814,708 




46 
47 


Administrative Benefits 
Vacation 


inc in sal. 


inc in sal. 


inc in sal. 


SO 




inc in sal. 




SO 




48 


Sick Leave 


inc in sal. 


inc in sal. 


inc in sal. 


so 




mc in sal. 




SO 




49 


Holiday 


inc in sa 


inc in sal. 


inc m sal. 


SO 




inc in sal. 




SO 




bO 


Health Insurance 


$27,279 


S29.759 


$29,759 


S86.797 




S24.514 




51 1 1.311 




51 


Dental Insurance 


S4.797 


55,233 


$5,233 


815.263 




S3, 720 




518,983 




52 
53 


Administrative Travel 

Travel Waqes 


inc in sal. 


inc in sal. 


inc in sal. 


SO 




inc in sal. 




SO 




o4 


Mileaqe 


$11,550 


512,600 


$12,600 


S36,750 




S7.350 




544,100 




55 
56 


Insurance and Bonding 

Liability Insurance 


$14,955 


522.825 


$25,821 


563,601 




513.613 




577,214 




57 


Automobile Insurance 


inc above 


mc above 


inc above 


SO 




mc above 




SO 




58 


Fidelity Bond 


$0 


SO 


SO 


50 




SO 




SO 




bg 


Performance Bond 


SO 


50 


$0 


SO 




$0 




so 




60 


Letter of Credit 


mc in oth 


inc in oth 


inc in oth. 


SO 




inc in oth 




so 




61 
62 


Office Expenses 

Rent 


$35,017 


S38.200 


S3B.200 


5111,417 




S42.000 




S153.417 




b3 


Maintenance/Janitorial 


$0 


SO 


SO 


SO 




50 




50 




b4 


Utilities 


$0 


SO 


SO 


SO 




SO 




SO 




bb 


Equipment Inewl 


SO 


SO 


SO 


SO 




SO 




SO 




bb 


Equipment Maintenance 


53.300 


53,600 


53,600 


510.500 




S302 




510.802 




b/ 


Equipment Deprec. Ipnor ourchas 


SO 


SO 


SO 


50 




SO 




50 




b8 


Accountmq and Data Processinq 


SO 


so 


$0 


50 




SO 




50 




L'.l 


Telephone 


S14.208 


515,500 


$15,500 


S45.208 




$13,125 




558,333 




/U 


Postaqe 


S5.958 


56,500 


$6,500 


S18.958 




52.043 




521 001 




M 


Phorocooymq/Priminq 


$6,875 


S7.500 


57,500 


121.875 




$1,352 




823.227 




.'2 


Suoplies 


59,625 


510,500 


510,500 


S30.625 




SU.375 




S42.00O 




/3 


Personnel Advenismo 


51,650 


S 1,800 


81,800 


55,250 




$3,080 




S8.330 




74 


Other Costs 


522,917 


$25,000 


S25.000 


572,917 




578,750 




5151.667 




75 


Profit 


513,402 


514.738 


514,809 


542,948 




$13,262 




556,211 




76 


Audit Costs 


S5.042 


$5,500 


55,500 


516.041 




53.182 




519.223 




77 


TOTAL COSTS 


54.670,810 


55,935,752 


56.590,609 


517,197.171 




54.182,526 




521.379,697 




7ft 


Full Time Equivalent IFTE1 




















.10 


Prepared bv: 








Telephone No. (5591324-6513 Dale 8/22/01 




B1 




DHS-CO Review Siqnature 













TT 



Addus Healthcare, Inc. 



Appendix B-3. Page 1 




: 7 ~.~ ^uuniy of San Francisco Deoartmon* * u I 

&^ department of Human Sen,' 

ATTACHMENT I | 

To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: Joseph Huang, Senior Contracts Manager 

Date: May 31, 2001 

Re: Advertisement for RFP 198 



Area Reporter, El Bohemia News The SmSSif* Gaarman, Astan Weekly, Bay 
Business Woman, and El Mense/enT Sl>SS2« * T BiyVkw - B ^ ^ 

The folio wing organizations were aware oft he T?PP „ *u 

BeTanTSr ^ ^^ *** S ™™ 
Consumers in Action for Personal Assistance 
Family Service Agency of San Francisco 
Goldman Institute on Aging 

msISiS n > S0UrCeCc " ,er ° fSanFranciSM 

Kimochi, Inc. 

Legal Assistance to the Elders, Inc 
Little Brothers - Friends of the Elderly 
North of Market Senior Services 

Planning for Elders in the Central City 
Project Open Hand 

San Francisco Adult Day Services Network 
Senior Action Network 

Western Addiuon Senior Citizen's Senior Center, Inc. 



5) 557-5000 

P.O. Box 7988 - . 

2 4 San Fr ancisco, California 9412 



Attachment m 

and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services 



To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: Joseph Huang, Senior Contracts Manager 

Date: September 25, 2001 

Re: Addus Modification and RFP Process Chronology 



The Department of Human Services issued RFP 198 on February 14, 2001. 
Proposals were due on March 27, 2001. Two proposals were received as of the due 
date: one from Addus Healthcare and one from the In-Home Supportive Services 
Consortium. The review panel that was convened on April 10, 2001 rated the 
Consortium proposal higher so the contract was tentatively awarded to the JHSS 
Consortium on April 17, 2001. Addus Healthcare subsequently filed a formal protest 
of the RFP process. 

To address the issues raised by Addus Healthcare, the Department initially 
decided to convene a separate review panel. The new panel would have been 
convened in late July/early August, with the new decision presented to the Human 
Services Commission, and then the Board of Supervisors, in August 2001, and the 
new contract would have started on September 1, 2001. It was under this scenario 
that the Department negotiated a two-month extension with Addus Healthcare to 
continue services through August 31, 2001, in order to prevent a disruption in service 
to clients. The two main elements subject to negotiation were the length of the 
extension and the rate of the extension. Addus asked for a 12 month extension at the 
rate proposed by them (S21.76) while the Department supported a 2 month extension 
at the current contract rate ($17.57). The compromise solution was to have a 2 month 
extension at the $21.76 rate. This two-month contract extension was approved by the 
Human Services Commission on June 28, 2001 and presented to the Board of 
Supervisors Finance Committee on August 1, 2001. The Finance Committee, 
however, did not approve this modification because the increase in profits that 
occurred with the increase in rate (from S17.57/hour to $21.76/hour) seemed 
excessive. 

In subsequent meetings between Addus Healthcare and the Department and in 
written correspondence from Addus to the Department, Addus Healthcare raised 
additional concerns with the RFP process and with the second review panel. Based 
on these additional concerns and the Addus' protest of the original tentative award, 
the Department canceled RFP #198 and initiated negotiations between Addus and the 
EHSS Consortium to determine the optimal share of service load for these clients and 
to reach a satisfactory solution to the bid protest. The new contract that results from 
these negotiations is expected to begin on February 1, 2002. 

With the Finance Committee's rejection of the proposed increased rate, the 
Department has renegotiated with Addus Healthcare for the extension of their current 
contract. The new extension is for the period from July 1, 2001 through January 31, 
2002, with the proposed rate a modest increase, from S17.57/hour to S19.12/hour, 
which includes increasing the minimum wage to $10.00/hour. 



P.O. Box 7988 25 San Francisco, California 94120 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-1715 

Department: 

Item: 



Source of Funds: 
Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Required Match: 

Indirect Costs: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport to accept and expend 
two grants totaling $23,849,790 from the Federal Aviation 
Administration for Airport Improvements. $15,525,000 of 
the total grant award of $23,849,790 would be expended 
on four capital improvement projects managed by the 
Airport's Facilities Operations and Maintenance Division, 
and $8,324,790 of the total grant award of $23,849,790 
would be expended on Preliminary Engineering and 
Environmental Planning for Environmental Evaluation 
managed by tbe Airfield Development Bureau, pertaining 
to the two airport runway reconfiguration projects. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

$23,849,790 

September 6, 2001 through September 6, 2005 (four 
years). According to Ms. Cathy Widener of the Airport, 
the Airport has not accepted or expended any of the 
subject grant funds to date. 

$7,949,930, which includes $5,175,000 in Airport Capital 
Improvement Project Funds and $2,774,930 in Airport 
Passenger Facility Charges Revenues (see Comment 5). 

The Airport waives the inclusion of indirect costs to 
maximize the use of such funds for the subject projects. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Airport to 
accept and expend FAA grant funds for improvement 
projects under the Airport Improvement Program. 
According to Ms. Widener, $15,525,000 of the subject 
grant funds would be used for four Airport development 
projects and $8,324,790 of the subject grant funds would 
be used for two airport runway reconfiguration projects. 

The four Airport development projects include: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



(a) Design and construction of runway shoulders on the 
Airport's two existing runways 1 . The two runway 
shoulders will be widened to comply with FAA 
requirements, which require wider shoulders to 
prevent engine ingestion of foreign object debris, blast 
erosion, and dust control. Additionally, the wider 
shoulders would accommodate maintenance and 
emergency equipment. 

(b) Improvements in airfield lighting for safe aircraft 
operations in low visibility conditions. 2 Improvements 
would include additional taxiway lighting, guidance 
signs, and lighting monitoring, which would initiate 
an alarm at the control tower when the lighting lamps 
fail. The proposed improvements would comply with 
FAA requirements for surface movement guidance and 
operation in low visibility conditions to enhance safety. 

(c) Upgrades and repairs to the timber trestle, which is 
the wooden platform extending beyond the end of the 
runways and into the San Francisco Bay and 
supporting the lights that are required during the 
final approach by aircraft. The timber trestle 
improvements include replacement of walkway, 
handrails, and other structural elements of the timber 
trestles, which, according to Ms. Widener, are unsafe 
and require both repairs and upgrades. 

(d) Improvements to the hydraulic flow to the existing 
South Detention Pond, which is used to capture initial 
storm water runoff, 3 and reroute four existing main 
drainage flow lines from the Airport terminals and 
roadways to the South Drainage Canal to make room 
for a future aircraft taxiway. 

Total estimated project costs for the four Airport 
development projects will be $20,700,000, of which 
$15,525,000 will be paid from the subject grant and 
$5,175,000 will be paid from Airport Capital Improvement 
Project Funds. 



1 The shoulder widening would occur at two locations, 10L-28R, which is located on the southeast 
side of Runway 28R, which is 11,870 feet running north-south, and 1R-19L, which is located on the 
southeast side of Runway 1R, which is 9,500 feet running east-west. 

2 By FAA definition, "low visibility" is when visibility is less than 1,200 feet. 

3 According to Ms. Widener, the storm water runoff, which is captured in the South Detention Pond 
is then treated through the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant to prevent any pollutants from 
entering the Bay. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



The two Airport runway configuration projects include: 

(a) Preliminary engineering services to support the 
environmental evaluation of a potential third 
runway. According to Ms. Widener, the preliminary 
engineering services will provide the necessary 
technical data and information for the environmental 
review and permitting processes that will be required 
for any proposal to construct a third Airport runway. 
The proposal to construct a third Airport runway 
includes constructing a runway on earth fill of the 
Bay, constructing a runway on a pile-supported 
structure, or a combination of the two. Ms. Widener 
states that the preliminary engineering reports are 
necessary to identify the effects of different methods 
of constructing a new runway on Bay water 
circulation and sedimentation, air quality, and other 
environmental impacts. According to Ms. Widener, 
such preliminary engineering is required as part of 
the Environmental Impact Report and 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). 

(b) Environmental services to conduct field surveys and 
habitat studies of the proposed sites to construct a 
third Airport runway, to identify other sites in the 
Bay Area to offset habitat loss from the construction 
of the proposed runway, and to prepare a Mitigation 
Plan for submittal to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and other regulatory agencies. 

Total estimated project costs for the two Airport runway 
reconfiguration projects will be approximately 
$11,099,720, of which $8,324,790 will be paid from the 
subject grant and $2,774,930 will be paid from the Airport 
Passenger Facility Charges Revenues. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The proposed budget for the four Airport development 
projects and two Airport runway reconfiguration projects 
is as follows: 



Federal Airport 

Grant Matching 

Funds Funds Total Project 



Airport development projects 

Administrative expenses 

Architectural and engineering services 

Project inspection fees 

Construction costs 
Subtotal 

Runway reconfiguration projects 

Engineering services 

Environmental services* 
Subtotal 



$37,500 


$12,500 


$50,000 


1,162,500 


387,500 


1,550,000 


1,125,000 


375,000 


1,500,000 


13,200.000 


4,400.000 


17,600.000 



15,525,000 5,175,000 20,700,000 



6,584,790 
1,740,000 
8,324,790 



2,194,930 

580.000 

2,774,930 



8,324,790 

2.774,930 

11,099,720 



Total project costs $23,849,790 $7,949,930 $31,799,720 

* The total budget for environmental services for habitat mitigation studies is $4,150,000, which 
includes $2,320,000 ($1,740,000 in FAA grant monies plus $580,000 in required matching funds) 
plus $1,830,000 in other local funds (see Attachment II). 



Comments: 



1. Attachment I, provided by the Airport, contains the 
budget details for the proposed $20,700,000 budget for the 
four Airport development projects. According to Ms. 
Josephine Lau of the Airport, existing Airport staff would 
provide design, engineering, and project management 
services for the proposed projects. Ms. Lau states that the 
estimated cost of $1,550,000 for such services, designated 
in the category under architectural and engineering 
services, is based on the Airport's estimate that, 
historically, such services will equal 7.5 percent of total 
estimated project costs of $20,700,000. Ms. Lau also 
states that project inspection fees of $1,500,000 include 
construction management to be performed by Airport 
staff, construction fees and Airport Operations personnel 
to oversee the project sites and to ensure safety. 
According to Ms. Lau, the estimated cost of $1,500,000 for 
such fees are based on historical estimates, equaling 
approximately 7.25 percent of the total estimated project 
costs of $20,700,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. The Airport has budgeted $50,000 for administrative 
expenses, which, according to Ms. Lau, include charges for 
preparing reports and specifications, reproduction 
charges, advertisements, processing invoices and bids, 
and other administrative expenses incurred by the 
Airport. 

3. Ms. Lau states that the estimated construction costs 
for four Airport development projects are $17,600,000. 
Ms. Lau states that the construction projects will be 
performed by outside contractors who will be selected 
through a competitive bid process. 

4. The proposed budget of $20,700,00 for the four Airport 
development projects would be over a four-year period. In 
the first year of funding of the project (First Funding 
Period), the Airport has budgeted $8,280,000 of the 
$20,700,000, which includes $6,210,000 in FAA funds and 
$2,070,000 in local matching funds, as shown in 
Attachment I. 

5. The Airport's FY 2001-2002 budget includes 
$60,000,000 for a new Passenger Facility Fee Project, 
funded by new Passenger Facility Charges Revenues. The 
Board of Supervisors placed these funds on reserve during 
the FY 2001-2002 budget review, and therefore, the 
Finance Committee would need to approve the release of 
$2,774,930 in Passenger Facility Charges Revenues in 
order for the Airport to use these funds for the required 
match. 4 

6. Attachment II, provided by the Airport, contains 
budget summaries for preliminary engineering services to 
support the environmental evaluation of the proposed 
third runway reconfiguration project and for the related 
environmental services for the habitat mitigation study. 
According to Mr. Kevin Kone of the Airport, outside 
contractors, selected through a Request for Proposal 



4 According to Ms. Widener, the Airport implemented a $4.50 per passenger surcharge on October 1, 
2001, which is deposited in the Passenger Facility Fee Project fund. Ms. Widener states that the 
$4.50 surcharge is established by the FAA and is not subject to Board of Supervisors approval. Ms. 
Widener states that the Airport is required to apply to the FAA for approval of uses of the Passenger 
Facility Charges Revenues. Any changes in the use of such revenues would require FAA and Board 
of Supervisors approval. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

(RFP) process would provide these services. Mr. Kone 
states that the expenditure of funds, totaling $11,099,720 
($8,324,790 in FAA grant funds and $2,774,930 in 
required matching funds from the Passenger Facility 
Charges Revenues), would occur within the first year of 
the four-year grant period. The Budget Analyst 
recommends reserving $8,324,790 in FAA grant funds, 
pending selection of consultants, and submission of 
budget details, including the hourly rates and the 
estimated hours of the consultants. 

7. The Budget Analyst recommends amending the 
proposed resolution, by deleting "$11,820,000" on page 2, 
line 24, and adding $11.099,720 , to reflect the correct 
total amount of FAA grant funds and required matching 
funds. 

8. Attachment III is the Grant Information Form. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution by reserving $8,324,790 

in FAA grant funds, pending selection of consultants, and 
submission of budget details, including the hourly rates 
and the estimated hours of the consultants, as noted in 
Comment 6. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution by deleting 
"$11,820,000" on page 2, line 24, and adding $11,099,720 , 
as noted in Comment 7. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



U S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 'EOERAl AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 




^age 1 of 2 

:«BNO. 80-R0184 


PART III - BUDGET INFORMATION - CONSTRUCTION 


SECTION A - GENERAL 


1 . Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No 


20-106 














SECTION B -CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT 


Cost Classification 


Use only for revisions 


Total 
Amount 
Requrea 


Latest Aopraveo 
Amount 


Ad|ustmeni 
♦or(-) 


1. Administration expense 


s 


$ 


.... 

S 50,000 


2. Preliminary expense 








3. Land, structures, nght-of-way 






i 


4. Architectural engineenng oasic fees 






1.550.000 


5. Other Architectural engineenng fees 








6. Project inspection fees 






1,500,000 


7. Land development 








8. Relocation Expenses 








9. Relocation payments to Individuals and Businesses 








10. Demolition and removal 








1 1 . Construction and project improvement 






17,600,000 


12. Equipment 








13. Miscellaneous 








14. Total (Lines 1 through 13) 






20.700.000 


15. Estimated Income (if applicable) 






20,700,000 


16. Net Protect Amount (Line 14 minus 15) 








17. Less: Ineligible Exclusions 








18. Add: Contingencies 






_n_ 


19. Total Proiect Amt. (Excluding Rehabilitation Grants) 






?0 ,700 ^ni- 


20. Federal Share requested of Line 19 






ls, 525, 00C 


21. Add Rehabilitation Grants Requested (100 Percent) 






15,525,00( ! 


22- Total Federal grant requested (Lines 20 & 21) 






15,525,00( 


23. Grantee share 






5,175,O0C 


24. Other shares 








25. Total Proiect (Unas 22. 23 4 24) 


$ 


s 


$ 20,700,001 


FAA Form 5100-100 (6-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100-1- PAGES 1 


THRU 7 
32 




Pag* 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 






a. 

oa 

c 

c 



O 6 ^ 
75 Z 



CD 



|1 

* o 

C —I 

i ^ 



*— (N m ^r *n 



O "D O — 



1 1 

I 5 



33 



Page 1 of 2 



Estimated Budget for Preliminary Engineering AIP 17 

San Francisco International Airport 

Airfield Development Bureau 

Travel $ 263,392 

includes all travel by consultants and subs required to conduct 
testing and provide professional services realted to the project 

Repro $ 175,594 

includes the reproduction of all reports required as part of the 
deliverables for this project (each report submitted with 10 copies) 

Computer Cost $ 263,392 

cost of computer time used to run all analyses and models related to 
the engineering applications to be studied and reported on by consultant 

Administration $ 438,986 

cost of office staff used by consultant and miscellaneous admin duties 
required to provide the services detailed in the scope of work 

Contingency $ 877,972 

based on standard 10 percent for required changes in testing due to 
unforseen issues related to geotechnical and hydro conditions 

Postage/Courrier $ 87,797 

estimated costs associated with the delivery of drafts for review and the shipment 
of final reports to ADB and required agencies. 

Professional Services $ 6,672,587 

estimated cost of professional services provided for all aspects of the scope 

of work identified in the contract including the services of engineers, CADD technicians 

and any subconsultants needed for testing services 



Total $ 8,779,720 

Provided by the San Francisco international Airport, 10/10/01 



34 



i- cac.. . 
Page Z of Z~~ 



Airport Commission 
San Francisco International Airport 

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 
HABITAT MITIGATION SITE PLANNING & ASSESSMENT 

AIP Application 
Description of Work Estimated Cost 



Develop Phase 2 Mitigation Site Ranking Criteria $63,000 

Conduct Phase 2 Mitigation Site Ranking $150,000 

Conduct Resource Assessments $357,000 

A. Conduct Constraints-Level Wetland Characterization 

B. Characterize Biological Communities 

C. Identify Potential Special-Status Species Habitat 

D. Identify Known Cultural Resources 

E. Identify Existing Infrastructure/Utilities 

F. Identify Incompatible Land Uses 

G. Identify Existing Flooding and Flood Control Constraints 

Develop Mitigation Alternatives and Mitigation Concept Plans $230,000 

A. Collect Existing Information 

B. Conduct Reconnaissance-Level Field Visits 

C. Develop Draft 

Prepare Preliminary Mitigation and Monitoring Plan $601,000 

A. Conduct Topographic Surveys 

B. Prepare Program Mitigation Plan 

C. Prepare Plans for Example Sites 

D. Prepare Mitigation Monitoring Plan 

Coordinate with Other Studies and Compliance Activities $406,000 

A. Provide Support for Habitat Valuation Process 

B. Provide Support for Preparation of the EIR/EIS Process 

C. Provide Support for Project Permitting 

Strategy Consultation $25,000 

. Project Management $334,000 

. Contingency Planning $514,000 

. Obtain Infrared Aerial Photography $75,000 

. Land Owner Access Fees $10,000 

. Project Communication Documents $21,000 

. Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Implementation $26,000 

. Develop Conceptual Plans for Alternate Mitigation Actions $56,000 

. Provide Business Relocation Services $1,282,000 

Total Cost $4,150,000 

ie total estimated project costs of $4,150,000 include $1,740,000 in FAA grant monies, 
)80,000 in required matching funds, and $1,830,000 in other local funds. 

)vided by San Francisco International Airport, 10/10/01 



35 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 3 



File Number: 



Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a 
Department to accept and expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1. Grant Title: Accept and Expend Grant Funds under the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP), AIP Project No. 01-1-3-06-0221-1601 and AIP 
Project No. 01-5-3-06-0221-0000 

2. Department: Airport Commission 

3. Contact Person: Cathy Widener Telephone: (650) 821-5023 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[ x ] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for $23,849,790.00 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $7,949,930.00 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): AIP Project No. 01-1-3-06-0221- 
1601, $5,175,000 in Capital Improvement Project Funds; AIP Project No. 
01-5-3-06-0221-0000, $2,774,930 in Passenger Facility Charge Revenues 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Federal Aviation Administration 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): N/A 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: Please Refer to Attachment A 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 
Start Date: September 6, 2001 End Date: September 6, 2005 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: (0 for AIP No. 16; for AIP 

No. 17) 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the 
grant ends? (N/A for AIP No. 16 and AIP No. 17) 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: $20,700,000 for AIP No. 16; 
$11 ,280,000 for AIP No. 17 



36 



Pa°;e 2 of 3 



b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? (Yes, if over $50,000, according 

to FAA bid and contract procedures) 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's 

MBE/WBE requirements? (Possible, but MBE/WBE goals do not apply to 
FAA contracts) 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? One-Time 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [ x ] No 

b1. If yes, How much? N/A 

b2. How was the amount calculated? N/A 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 
[ ] Not allowed by granting agency 
[ ] To maximize use of grants funds on direct services 
[ x ] Other (please explain): According to the Lease and Use Agreement 

between the City of San Francisco and major airlines using San Francisco 

International Airport, the Annual Service Payment made to the City shall 

constitute full satisfaction of all obligations of the Airport. 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: N/A 



** Disability Access Checklist** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[ x ] Existing Site(s) [ x ] Existing Structure(s) [ ] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structures(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[X] New Site(s) [X] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability has 
reviewed the proposal and concluded that the project as proposed will be in 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all other Federal, State 
and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons 
with disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in 
the comments section: 

Comments: 

37 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 3 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability 
Reviewer: ^"^ «=*■ r 6 * Sl 



Date Reviewed: 



2* 



Uu_U-_ \I- , 1~>~ I 



Department Approval: 



(Name) 



Aw^vl 



£^_ 



Co 



©•AjL#t^A«^7 



Jp^ 




38 



Memo to Finance 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 01-1774 

Department: 

Item: 



Department of Environment (DOE) 

Hearing to consider the requested release of reserved 
funds in the amount of $6,750,000 for the Power Boosters 
small business energy efficiency retrofit program reserved 
by the Board of Supervisors in August of 2001 (File No. 
01-1431). 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



The Department of Environment has requested that the 
hearing on the requested release of reserved funds be 
continued for two weeks. 

Continue the proposed resolution for two weeks, to the 
Finance Committee meeting of October 31, as requested 
by the Department of Environment. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-1359 



Department: 



Item: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Administrative Services 
Management Program 
Department of Environment (DOE) 



Solid Waste 



Hearing to consider a requested release of reserved funds 
in the amount of $209,434 for salaries reserved by the 
Board of Supervisors during the FY 2001-2002 Budget 
process. 

Funds appropriated and reserved in the Department of 
Administrative Services - Solid Waste Management 
Program budget for FY 2001-2002. 

The Board Of Supervisors approved a reserve 
representing nine months of salaries for the Solid Waste 
Program during the FY 2001-2002 budget approval 
process, pending the transfer of the Solid Waste 
Management Program from the Department of 
Administrative Services to the Department of 
Environment as recommended by the Finance Committee. 

The Budget Analyst incorrectly recorded the amount of 
$209,434 for the nine months of Solid Waste Management 
Program salaries to be reserved, based on the permanent 
salaries for a different program in the Department of 
Administrative Services, and that incorrect amount was 
placed on reserve in the final FY 2001-2002 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance. The correct amount 
representing nine months of Solid Waste Management 
Program salaries to be reserved is $1,061,430. 

On September 10, 2001 the Mayor's Office transmitted a 
letter to the Board of Supervisors stating that the planned 
reorganization of the Solid Waste Management Program 
and the Department of Environment had been approved 
by the Mayor. The letter noted that the Solid Waste 
Management Program is responsible for the City's 
recycling and waste reduction programs and that merging 
the two departments would improve the delivery of 
environmental services by combining environmental 
programs into one department. According to Mr. David 
Assman of the Department of Environment, the merger 
became effective October 1, 2001 in accordance with the 
prior recommendation of the Finance Committee. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The Department of Environment is now requesting the 
release of reserved funds by the Board of Supervisors to 
fully fund Solid Waste Management Program salaries for 
FY 2001-2002. 

Comments: 1. Presently, for FY 2001-2002, the Department of 

Environment is funded from General Fund monies in the 
amount of $1,831,488 and the Solid Waste Management 
Program budget is funded from non-General Fund monies 
(the Solid Waste Projects Fund) in the amount of 
$4,676,462. The Solid Waste Projects Fund is primarily 
funded from fees added to Garbage Rates for the support 
of recycling and waste reduction programs. The merger of 
the two departments would result in a combined budget 
and staffing levels as shown in the table below. 

Budgeted Positions 
Original FY 200 1 - (Full Time 

2002 Budget Equivalents) 

Department of Environment $ 1,831,488 15.49 

Solid Waste Management Program 4.676.462 20.66 

Merged Department of 

Environment /Solid Waste 

Management Program $ 6,507,950 36.15 

2. Mr. Mark Westlund of the Department of Environment 
states that the proposed merger of the Office of Solid 
Waste Management and the Department of Environment 
would not result in any additional costs to the City. 
Attachment I to this report from the DOE further 
confirms that the City will incur no additional costs as a 
result of the proposed merger. 

3. Attachment II to this report is an organization chart 
illustrating the configuration of the Solid Waste Program 
within the Department of Administrative Services prior to 
the October 1, 2001 merger with the Department of 
Environment. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

3. Attachment III is an organizational chart provided by 
the Department of Environment that shows the prior 
organization of the Department of Environment. 
Attachment IV is an organization chart of the newly- 
combined Department of Environment and Sohd Waste 
Management Program. 

Recommendation: Approval of the request for the release of reserved funds 

is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




Attachment I" 



SF Environ men t 




WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

JARED BLUMENFELD 
Director 



)ctober 10, 2001 

'ascal St. Gerard 

budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

:ity Hall room 244 

)ear Mr. St. Gerard, 

[Tie Department of the Environment and Solid Waste Management Program are integrating operations, 
ind by doing so will incur no additional costs for the City & County of San Francisco. 

salaries and positions will be kept to the existing number, and we expect to achieve increased 
idministrative efficiency by coordinating efforts in personnel, budgeting, accounting, and information 
echnology. 



sincerely yours, 



David Assmann 
Deputy Director 



A3 



irtmentof the Environment, City and County of Sarr Francisco 

shone: (415) 554-6390 • Fax: (415) 554-6393^ 1 1 Grove Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 

I: Environment@ci.sf.ca.us • www.sfenvironmentcbm 



Attachment II 



Solid Waste Management Program Staff 



Mavor 



Citv Administrator 



Ret TaOor i 

Solid Wait 

tdmijatatrarioil it 

LAN 



Nataiba SaiUnaji" 
School Educadoi 



V1ar1a Tapaiis-Oairti- 
Public Outreach 



WajTuood Wooj 
Business Profr 



Mario Padilla 
Aasx. School Ed. 
,,-- Coordinator 



IfW Projc 
— MP- 



BW Pro|c 



-P) 



Aisl Outreach Coord. 
13«7 (Vacant) 








Jim Chieo 
Awl Outreach 

13A3 Coordinator 














Lolila Sweet 
Public Outreach 
'n<="i AsiL 





Kevin Drew 
Industrial 

Recycling Coord 



Robert Haley 
Residen da l/S pedal 
3to Projects Coord. 



Note. Chart does not include Technical Contractors: Alex Dong. Hazardous Waste Contractor/Roopal Mayor, Curbside used Oil Contractor/Becky Wike. School Technical Contrac 
Amencorps members: Nicole Bnsehois and Abby Templar 
" Mstemitv Leave 



44 



lachtnent I! 



is 

m 00 







Z 






o 


k: 






o 






>- 






< 




2 


2 




2 

o 
u 



> - 

w s 

Q 



uj U 



z 


> 




u 


B* 




M 


< 


t> 


oo 


H 


cs 


I 2 
S u 


< 


n 


LU 




u 


00 





4 >. 

na >. u z 

U o 2 O 

O z — >" 

2 w 



Q 
Z 

< 



^Z 
Z oo 

J Q 



< < o 

>- U oo 

2§ s 



Q 

H 
< (- 



a co 

?3 "V <n 



a 5 



S eN 



a o 



S2 
u 



UJ 



c < > 

^ s 

< 



5 .2 

6 i 






















< 




o 






l> 


Ed 




m 


OJ 


o 


- ■ 


u 


o 
U 







00 




■o 




m - 










< 


O 


B 


"^ 






a 




! ) 


-a 




c 









U 











^> 






> 










< 
a 


a 


o 


i) 


ON 


u 




On 








U 


00 





<u « _ 
= o o 



«£ •- vo 

£. 7 n 



o o 






45 



Attachment IV 



o 



6 





L 









Administration 

and Budget 

Staff (6) 














o 
u 
m 

Q 

Q. 

m 

Q 
















19 

o in 

ro ~-- 
O 

o 









46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-0836 

Note: This item was continued to the Call of the Chair at the May 30, 2001 Finance 
Committee Meeting, pending submittal of additional information by the 
Department of Elections regarding its negotiations with the voting system 
contractor, Elections Systems and Software (ES&S) 



Departments: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 
Description: 



Department of Administrative Services 
Department of Elections 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $800,000 to purchase equipment and $251,000 
for non-personal services for the Department of Elections 
for a total of $1,051,000. 

$1,051,000 

Previously appropriated and reserved General Fund 
monies for the Department of Elections. 

$ 800,000 Equipment Purchase 

251,000 Non-Personal Services 
$1,051,000 Total 

On April 23, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation (File 01-0249) for the 
Department of Elections in the amount of $2,411,887 to 
fund cost overruns that resulted from the November and 
December of 2000 elections. Of the $2,411,887 approved, 
the Finance Committee reserved $800,000 to complete the 
purchase of the optical scan voting technology system 
equipment and $251,000 for the remaining service fee 
payments on the optical scan voting technology system 
equipment. These funds were placed on reserve by the 
Finance Committee because at the time the requested 
supplemental appropriation was approved, the 
Department of Elections was in the midst of negotiations 
with the optical scan voting technology system vendor, 
Elections Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S), regarding 
(1) whether the City should complete the purchase or 
alternatively lease the optical scan voting technology 
system; and (2) whether there was contract 
nonperformance by ES&S during the November and 
December of 2000 elections. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

In April of 2001, when the supplemental appropriation 
was approved, Ms. Christiane Hayashi, previously of the 
City Attorney's Office assigned to the Department of 
Elections advised the Budget Analyst that she was 
continuing to negotiate with ES&S regarding contract 
modifications in order to preserve the Department's 
flexibility in the future, when the Department plans to 
upgrade to touch-screen voting, estimated to cost 
approximately $10 to $12 million. Therefore, although the 
Department had originally proposed to purchase the 
optical scan voting technology system from ES&S, the 
Department wanted to further analyze the option of 
applying the previous purchase payments as lease 
payments for the optical scan equipment. 

Comments: 1. The requested $251,000 for Non-personal Services is to 

pay ES&S the 2001 annual service fee for Calendar Year 
2001. In accordance with the agreement between ES&S 
and the City, the City agreed to pay ES&S the following 
annual service fees on the following dates: 

January 20, 2001 - $251,300 
January 20, 2002 - $145,900 
January 20, 2003 - $251,300 
January 20, 2004 - $145,900 

Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of Administrative 
Services advises that, to date, the January 20, 2001 
service fee has not been paid to ES&S. According to Mr. 
Minasian, these annual service fees provide for ES&S's 
ongoing logistical support, system maintenance, training, 
storage, and reporting on the optical scan voting 
technology system for the Department of Elections. As 
shown above, the actual annual service fee for Calendar 
Year 2001 is $251,300 or $300 more than the requested 
$251,000 to be released from reserve. 

2. The requested $800,000 for Equipment Purchase is to 
complete the purchase of the ES&S optical scan voting 
technology system, including the accrued interest 
expenses for the loan to purchase this equipment. 

3. A memorandum, dated September 24, 2001, provided 
by Mr. Minasian, is included as Attachment I to this 
report and explains the Department of Elections need for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

the subject requested funds totaling $1,051,000. As noted 
in Attachment I, as a result of negotiations between 
ES&S and the City, the City will need to proceed and 
complete its purchase, instead of a lease, of the optical 
scan technology system from ES&S because ES&S was 
not receptive at this time to enter into a new leasing 
agreement for the optical scan voting technology system 
equipment and would not agree to change the existing 
purchase arrangements to a lease arrangement for the 
voting equipment. 

4. As further identified in Attachment I, based on the 
negotiations between the City and ES&S, ES&S has now 
agreed to credit the City with a total of $191,041 
including: (1) $29,000 for liquified damages determined as 
a result of negotiations between the Department of 
Elections and ES&S 1 , (2) $87,543 for additional 
Department of Elections staff needed to perform 11 tasks 
that ES&S was contracted to perform (See page 3 of 
Attachment I for the 11 identified tasks), and (3) $74,498 
in additional costs incurred for five projects that ES&S 
was contracted to perform, including $51,150 for not 
installing batteries in the Eagle Voting Equipment, as 
specified in the contract (See page 3 of Attachment I for 
the identified projects). 

As shown in Attachment I, this $191,041 credit from 
ES&S is offset by $22,117 which the City owes to ES&S, 
for a net credit from ES&S to the City of $168,924. Mr. 
Minasian advises that the $22,117 offset is for the cost of 
five additional laptop computers ($4,423 per computer) 
requested by the Department from ES&S, which exceeded 
the six computers already provided in the original ES&S 
contract. According to Mr. Minasian, the Department 
incurred the additional $22,117 of computer equipment 
costs because the then Director of the Department of 
Elections decided that the Department needed more 
backup laptops, in case of equipment failure during the 
election. The $251,300 annual service payment, discussed 



1 The ES&S contract contained specific provisions regarding tasks and deadlines, with penalties to be 
assessed for failure for ES&S to meet these milestones. Mr. Minasian advises that the ES&S contract 
specifically required the installation of certain computer hardware and software by May 17, 2000. 
However, ES&S did not complete this task until June 15, 2000, resulting in the $29,000 of liquified 
damages. Mr. Minasian advises that the Department had requested $29,000 and ES&S agreed to 
that amount. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



above in Comment No. 1, whicb is owed to ES&S would 
be offset by this net credit from ES&S of $168,924, for an 
actual payment of $82,376, due from the Department to 
ES&S. 

5. In April of 2000, the Department of Elections entered 
into a third party loan agreement with Norweot 
Investment Services, Inc. (Norwest) to finance the 
purchase of the optical scan voting technology system 
from ES&S over a period of five years. This loan 
agreement was entered into because at the time the 
voting system project was being planned, during the 
Spring of 2000, the FY 2000-2001 funding level for the 
Department of Elections' voting system had not yet been 
determined. Therefore, the Mayor's Budget Office and the 
Controller anticipated the need to finance the purchase of 
the system rather than purchase it outright. 

Ms. Theresa Alvarez of the City Attorney's Office advises 
that this third party loan agreement between the City 
and Norwest was not subject to the Board of Supervisors 
approval because it did not meet the City's required 
threshold of at least ten years and $10,000,000. 

6. However, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors 
approved $3,241,738 of Capital Expenses in the 
Department of Elections FY 2000-2001 budget for the full 
purchase of the optical scan voting technology system 
from ES&S. Therefore, Mr. Minasian advised that it was 
the intent of the Department to pay off the Norwest loan 
agreement during FY 2000-2001, rather than to continue 
the loan and interest payments over the original five-year 
loan period. However, $800,000 of the total $3,241,738 
capital expenses were placed on reserve. Mr. Minasian 
advises that the proposed request for release of $800,000 
would be used to fully pay back the Norwest loan to 
enable the Department of Elections to complete this 
equipment purchase, without incurring any additional 
interest costs on the Norwest loan. 

7. Attachment II, provided by Mr. Minasian, identifies the 
Norwest loan for the $3,241,738 of ES&S equipment 
which began on April 6, 2000 and extends through June 
1, 2005 at an interest rate of 5.18 percent Over the course 
of this five-year loan, the City is required to make ten 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

payments of $374,992.20 each, for a total cost of 
$3,749,922, or a total interest expense of $508,184 over 
the five-year period. To date, the City has made two 
payments to Norwest totaling $749,984.40 (on December 
1, 2000 and June 1, 2001) on this $3,241,738 loan. 

It should also be noted that the previous April 23, 2001 
supplemental appropriation for the Department of 
Elections included $65,000 of additional funds to pay the 
net interest costs that had been incurred up until that 
time for the Norwest loan. Therefore, the Department has 
already been appropriated a total of $3,306,738 
($3,241,738 for equipment purchase plus $65,000 of 
additional interest costs) to pay for the ES&S equipment 
and financing costs to Norwest, from which a total cost of 
$749,984 has been paid on the loan, for a remaining 
balance of $2,556,754. Mr. Minasian advises that these 
previously appropriated Department of Elections funds 
totaling $2,556,754 were carried forward from FY 2000- 
2001 to the current FY 2001-2002. 

However, it should be noted that the subject requested 
$800,000 that is on reserve is part of this $2,556,754 that 
has been carried-forward to the current fiscal year. The 
Department is requesting the release of this $800,000 in 
order for the Department to pay off its loan balance of 
$2,556,754 owed to Norwest. 

8. Given (1) the current economic conditions in the City 
which has resulted in projected revenue shortfalls and the 
possibility of reduced spending in various City 
department budgets, (2) the potential need for a 
supplemental appropriation for the Department of 
Elections to conduct one or more run-off elections in FY 
2001-2002, and (3) the existing third party loan 
arrangement with Norwest at an interest rate of 5.18 
percent to complete the purchase of the ES&S voting 
equipment over the next four years, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the subject request for release of 
reserved funds not be approved. Not approving this 
release of reserve would enable the City to preserve its 
financial options and flexibility to use the available funds 
for other purposes during the current fiscal year. 
Furthermore, over the past six months, the City has 
earned an average of 5.5 percent on existing City-pooled 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

funds, which is approximately 0.32 percent greater than 
the costs of the Norwest loan. 

Given that the Department of Elections currently has a 
remaining balance of $2,556,754 owed to Norwest as a 
result of the loan to acquire the ES&S optical scan voting 
technology system, the Department should use these 
funds to pay the two payments of $374,992 each due to 
Norwest on December 1, 2001 and June 1, 2002, totaling 
$749,984, (see Attachment II) and to pay the $82,376 
owed to ES&S ($251,300 annual service fee less the 
$168,924 credit due from ES&S, see Comment No. 4). 
This would result in a total Departmental payment of 
$832,360, including $749,984 owed to Norwest and 
$82,376 owed to ES&S. This would leave a remaining 
balance of $1,724,394 (including the subject $800,000 on 
reserve) of the previously appropriated funds for the 
purchase of the ES&S equipment which should be 
returned to the General Fund ($2,556,754 carried forward 
to FY 2001-2002 less $832,360 of net expenditures in FY 
2001-02). As previously noted, the subject $800,000 on 
reserve for the purchase of the ES&S equipment is part of 
the $2,556,754 carried forward to the current fiscal year. 
The Budget Analyst also notes that the January 20, 2002 
annual service fee due from the City to ES&S of $145,900 
is already included in the Department's FY 2001-2002 
budget, and therefore does not need to be paid from the 
subject funds. 

9. As discussed above, since the Department would 
continue to finance the purchase of the ES&S equipment, 
the Department would be able to pay the $82,376 owed to 
ES&S (the $251,300 annual service fee less the $168,924 
credit due from ES&S, see Comment No. 4) from the 
previously appropriated funds for the purchase of the 
ES&S equipment. As a result, there is not a need to 
release the subject requested $251,000 placed on reserve 
to pay for the January 20, 2001 annual service fee. Such 
funds should be returned to the City's General Fund. 

Recommendations: 1. Do not approve the requested $1,051,000 release of 

reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

2. Request the Department to continue the Norwest third 
party loan arrangement for the purchase of the ES&S 
equipment. 

3. Request the Controller to close out the remaining 
balance of $1,724,394 to the General Fund, including 
$800,000 on reserve, in accordance with Comment No. 8 
above. 

4. Request the Controller to close out the $251,000 on 
reserve to the City's General Fund, in accordance with 
Comment No. 9 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 




Page 1 of 3 
DEPARTMENT OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 



WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

ryan l. brooks September 24, 2001 

Director 



To : Debra Newman 

Budget Analyst 

From : Ara Minasian 



Subject: Request for release of reserve, File 01-0836 



The Director of Elections, Tammy Haygood, has requested for this item to be scheduled 
for the October 10 meeting of the Finance Committee. When the Committee was 
considering this release of reserve last May, it voted to continue it to the call of the 
Chair, pending submittal of additional information by the department regarding its 
negotiations with the voting system contractor, Elections Systems and Software 
(ES&S). Below I have summarized some information based on discussions with 
Chris Hayashi and review of herfiles.- 

Negotiations with ES&S regarding contract performance issues. As you stated in 
your previous report on this item, the City and ES&S have agreed to a net credit of 
$168,924. The details of this credit are listed on the attached worksheet. 

The contractor, ES&S, was monitored carefully throughout the implementation of the 
new voting system by Maria McDonald, who was the technical specialist brought to the 
Department of Elections by Patty Fado. Ms. McDonald thoroughly familiarized herself 
with the deliverables and milestones under the contract and documented the 
contractor's performance. She also created additional documentation to define the 
requirements for different elements of the election process and required ES&S to sign 
off on those requirements. 

After the election cycle, Maria compiled all of the contract performance issues that she 
had identified and assigned dollar values to each item, based on what she believed 
each performance problem had cost the Department of Elections to remedy. She 
delivered that summary to Chris Hayashi to follow up with the vendor. Ms. Hayashi 
discussed the next steps with the Contracts section of the City Attorney's Office, who 
advised that the Department of Elections would have to prove the amounts stated as 
actual costs, not just rough estimates. Chris Hayashi compiled invoices, time logs, 
hourly rates of staff, and other substantiation of the amounts claimed. Maria's time 
estimates were used to calculate the cost of staff time on specific matters. 

Crnr Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102-4683 
Telephone (415) 554-6171; Fax (415) 554-6177 
54 



At tacnmeu L j_ 
Page 2 of 3 



Debra Newman 
September 24, 2001 
Page 2 



Ms. Hayashi presented the substantiated claims to ES&S. The agreed upon amount of 
$191,041 that resulted from negotiations was offset by invoices from ES&S for $22,1 17 
for various services and supplies that were billable to the department, leaving a net 
credit of $168,924. 

Proposal to renegotiate contract. At the time that the department purchased the 
optical scan system, touchscreen voting systems were not an option for San Francisco 
because they were not certified by the Secretary of State for use in California. By the 
end of the November election, there were four California-certified touchscreen systems. 
After the Florida experience it seemed evident that within a few years there would be 
more vendors in the market. 

This fact, combined with ES&S' contract performance issues and challenges associated 
with paper ballots, led the department to seek alternatives to acquiring the optical 
scanning system. Although the optical scan system had provided fast and accurate 
results and maximized the number of votes that could be counted, the paper ballots 
turned out to be very expensive to purchase and difficult to handle. 

Given the likelihood of new voting systems looming on the horizon, it was desirable to 
preserve the department's future flexibility as much as possible. Chris Hayashi 
proposed for ES&S to lease the optical scanners to the department as an alternative to 
outright purchase. ES&S was not receptive to the proposal, and the City remained 
obligated to pay the amounts due under the contract to complete the purchase. 

Funds needed for release. The total funds on reserve are $1 ,051 ,000. Of this 
amount, the department needs $950,024.81 , as shown below: 

Amount on reserve for ES&S ancillary services 251 ,000.00 

Amount on reserve for voting system purchase 800,000.00 

Total funds on reserve 1,051,000.00 

Additional interest costs 67,949.00 

Less: Net credit from ES&S (168.924.19) 

Requested release of reserve 950,024.81 

The additional interest costs consist of the $10,139 amount identified in your May 30 
report, plus $57,810 in interest costs incurred since the June 1 lease payment. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

c: Tammy Haygood 



55 



a & ( 

































, . 












, , 




o 





CO 


in 


K 


OCT 








LO 





Tt 


LO 





O 








in 





<J5 




O O 








CT 


T - 


o 


q 


CM 


"3- 


N 


CD ht 


co 


p 


CN 


p 


•^ 


h- 





O 








N; 





T- 




O 





p 





T— 


00 


o 


00 


LO 


M"3" 


CO 


in 


00 


CN 


0' 


co 





CO 


1^ 





O 








r»^ 


t^ 


"^t 




O 








CO 


Tlf 


^ 


o 


00 





•>tf- OJ 


T— 


"«*■ 


LO 


<5f 


■<* 


N 





^1- 


CO 





LO 





LO 


o> 


T- 


CN 




O 








•«t 


CN 


CN 


o 


CN 


CO 


co in 


01 


CD 





r^ 





T— 


CO 


in 


T — 





T™ 


CN 


CTt 


rt 


T- 


<J> 




O 








CT) 


CT 


O 


























































OJ 


CN 


T — 


CD 


co 


xf 


CN 


CD 


CM 


LO 


CO 




N- 


LO M" 


T— 


CO 




TT 


CN 


00 




T - 





T— 


N- 


CO 


O" 


CN 






T — 








CO 










00 


1 


LO 


T— 




t^ 


CN- 


CD 




LO 





LO 


CO 


CD 


m 










































r— 




CN 


CO 


0_ 






CT 






















CO 


i 




1 
i 
















































1 












































31 


i 






i 






































1 COI 


1 I 




i 






































031 


1 










































i 










































• "<-> 




1 






































; ci 


1 








































1 










1 






































1 CD 
; s_ 1 












i 






































QJ 


















































CD 


u_ 




















































1 




















































> 


! = 








































CO 








(0 





en M 
y j to 












CO 




























c 
JO 




CO 



"co 


CO 

to 






"co 

JO 


c 

CD 

E 

<D 


C 

'c 
'co 

1— 


E 

CO 












to 

CD 






*-< 


























JO 


CD 




CD 
























O 






















c 


CO 
JO 


c 


h- 




£ 


TO 


CD 


CD 












5^ 




CO 




CO 




















c 


CO 


v>— 





>v 




c 


CO 














CO 


£C 




c 



i_ 
CD 
> 
O 

uj" 



Q 

> 
JO 

■0 

<D 






















to 

to 
c 

c 

CD 

E 
9. 

*3 

cr 


Q. 

>v 



c 

CD 
CD 

c 

c 




q3 


Cl 




CO 

J£ 


cd 

JC 


£r 

co 
X3 

c 



CD 
CO 

CO 


CO 

E 

CD 

JO 


L_ 

Cl 

CD 
CO 

co 

3 
CO 

c 
J5 

CO 




c 

CO 
1_ 

3 




< 

-0 
c 
co 

'co 

_l 

CO 


CO 

co 

j2 

"co 

E 

jc 


CO 
CD 

I— 

3 



CO 


CD 
00 

X) 
CO 
CO 

c 
'co 

CO 
CD 





1_ 
CL 

"D 

c 

CO 


CD 
O 
3 
TJ 

O 

Q. 



CO 

■e 

O 
Q. 
CD 
i_ 

cr 





D_ 

L_ 



M— 

CO 

co 

£ 
"co 

E 


O 

E 

CD 

i_ 

CO 

_c 


CJ 

"O 

c 



-a 

c 
co 


CO 
CD 

Q. 

D_ 
3 
CO 


c 
'0 

CD 
1— 
Cl 




E 


cr 




O 
CO 

1— 

c 




c 

TO 
CD 
c*— 
'0 
CD 
CO- 
CO 
CO 
CO 


3 




< 

TO 

c 

CO 



'co 


_J 

CD 

CO 
CO 

c 


CO 

E 

CO 

_c 




CO 

^ 

CD 

> 

CD 

>- 
_o 








CO 
CD 


CD 
CO 












CO 


en 


c 


c 


_c 


c 


CO 


customizii 
producing 
managing 


CT) 






co 


l_ 




CO 
CD 

3 

cr 

0) 

1— 
_co 
.2 






O 


CO 












'o> 

CO 

c 

CO 

E 


C 

CO 

Cl 
CD 

1— 

CL 


E 


t: 

CD 
Q. 


'co 

CO 

CD 

1— 

TO 

13 

CO 




_0 
TO 

c 




'CL 



CD 

> 

CD 

to 


c 

'co 

CO 

c 

CO 

E 


C 

CD 
> 

"CD 

■a 


CO 
CO 




i. 
_CD 

"5 
D_ 

E 

O 

CD 


1— 

CD 


E 
_o 

L. 
O 
O 
CO 
l_ 


_o 

O 

CO 
l_ 

C 




cr 


10 

*-< 

(0 

O 
u 

CO 

■*-> 

1 

1 




1 
i 


"E 

CD 
CO 

>^ 

M 


JC 

p 

CL 

E 
£ 

to 


























i 































! ! 


2 


-a 

CO 


CO 

CD 


"c 

8 

CD 

■0 
'co 
3 




C 


'1- 

CD 






c 
co 


CO 










CO 
Q) 
C 


c 

</> 

■*-• 

10 


u 

CO 














1 
i 

1 

1 ! 


vt- 
CC 

-t-l 
CO 

UJ 



Q 

CO 
CO 


1 

1 

"a 

^0 


CD 

DC 


CO 

Q- 

CO 

E 


CO 
CO 
LU 

c 


73 

_CD 

75 


for ballot prin 
2ss DOE non 


(0 

T3 
C 
CO 

c 

CD 

'I 

3 
CT 


CO 

03 

CO 

UJ 




CO 
06 
CO 

LU 

i_ 
O 
u— 

CD 

L." 


cr 
_c 



> 

L- 

O 

M— 

CD 


CD 

c! 

CD 
CO 
CD 


CO 

to 



to 


Cf) 
06 
CO 
LU 

E 


•*— 


CD 

£ 
CD 
CO 

CD 

1— 

H— 
O 

CD 
CO 
CO 
CD 

CD 

1— 

TO 


TO 

E 

<o 
"O 


<4-> 

UJ 
















1 


: la 

\ 
! : 




00 

CD 

c 



CO 

_c 



c 


£ 

CO 





\£\ 

1 COI >< 

! Oi O 

1 u| ■ 


E 





CD 
CO 

CD 

1— 

c 


CD 
CO 
CD 

La 

c 


L_ 

C 
O 

CO 


CD 

£ 

_c 


TO 

CD 
i_ 
O 


■o 


Q 

(/> 
V) 

CD 

. 














! 


1 — 
to 

O 

JO 


JC 

i 

> 




1 c 

. L— 

3 


CO 

CD 

£ 


"co 
c 



II 


CD 
CO 

I 

1— 


1 



i +* 






c 

=1 


E 


O 

c 

O 

E 


c 

C3 
•+- 


"co 
c 


TO 


1 

CO 

co 


£ 
to 

CD 
3 
CT 


.2 XI 














"cD 


"co 


-0 


! T3I 3 


CO 


CD! 


c 


TO 


CD 


CD 


-I UJ 






icojSio: 


CD 


< 


!< w 


> 


i Z i 


< 


< 


h- 


< 


—1 


Ct. 



515- 



Attachment II 



OCT-09-2001 16=13 
Voting Machines 



CCSF ADMIN. SERUICES 

City and County of S*n Praneisco 



415 554 6177 P. 02/02 



Costs Funded Payment Rate 
S3.24 1,73 8-05 5.180% 


10 Payments 

2 per year 

5.180% Rate 


Level Payment 
S374,99230 
Fctr-,115676 


Closing Fees 

fso.ooi 


Average Life 

3.03 years 
3632 months 




Commencement: Apr 6, 2000 




Closing Data: Apr 6, 2000 



Exhibity/^, 



Prnt 


Total Payment 
Due 


Interest 
Payment Due 


Principal 
Payment Due 


After payment 
Principal 
Balance 


After Payment 
Termination 

Value 


Payment D"ue 
Date 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

: 


5374,99230 


5109,615.77 
577,087.77 
569,372.04 
561,456.48 
$53335.90 
545,005.01 
536,45834 
527,69031 
S18.695.19 
S9.467.10 


5265,376.43 
5297,904.43 
5305,620.15 
5313,535.72 
S321,6S639 
S329.987.19 
5338,533.86 
S347.30l.88 
S356,297.00 
5365,525.10 


53,241,738.05 
52,976361.62 
52,678,457-19 
52372,837.04 
52,059,30132 
51,737,645.03 
51,407,657.84 
51,069,123.98 
5721.822.10 
5365.525.10 


S2.97636l.62 

S2,678,457.19 

52,372.837.04 

52,05930132 

51,737,645.03 

51,407,657.84 

$1,069,123.98 

5721.822.10 

S3 65,525.10 

S1.00 


Apr 6, 2000 
Dec 1,2000 
Jun 1,2001 
Dec 1,2001 
Jun 1, 2002 
Dec 1,2002 
Jun 1, 2003 
Dec 1,2003 
Jun 1,2004 
Dec 1,2004 
Jun 1.200S 


5374.992.20 
5374,99230 
5374,99230 
S374.992.20 
5374,99230 
5374,992.20 
S374,992.20 
5374,99230 
5374,992.20 



WttWSgtj 



57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 -File 01-1772 



Departments: 



Item: 



Department of Administrative Services 
Department of Elections 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the 
FY 2001-2002 budget for the Department of 
Elections in the amount of $2,015,719, including 
$1,716,830 for Personnel Services and $298,889 for 
Fringe Benefits, to fund the Department's 
reorganization and staffing plans. 



Amount: 



$976,829 

600,000 

6,667 

133.334 

$1,716,830 

298.889 

$2,015,719 



Permanent Salaries 
Temporary Salaries 
Premium Pay 
Overtime 

Subtotal 
Fringe Benefits 

Total 



Description: 



The proposed request by the Department of 
Elections is to release $2,015,719 representing 
eight months of salary, premium pay, overtime and 
mandatory fringe benefit funds, that was placed on 
reserve by the Finance Committee and the full 
Board of Supervisors in the FY 2001-2002 budget. 
These funds were placed on reserve to allow for the 
Department of Election's total reorganization that 
was being requested by the Department, including 
12 substitutions and the hiring of 9.0 new FTE 
positions (8.25 FTEs requested in the Interim 
Budget plus an additional 0.75 FTE) in the FY 
2001-02 Budget. 

At the time of the Finance Committee's budget 
hearings in June of 2001, since (1) the Director of 
Elections and all three of the permanent upper- 
level management positions in the Department of 
Elections were vacant, (2) there was a 50 percent 
vacancy rate in the overall staffing of the 
Department, (3) an upcoming November of 2001 
election was to be held, and (4) there was 
uncertainty of the Department's ability to 
implement its proposed reorganization plan, the 
Budget Analyst could not recommend specific 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

reductions in the Department of Elections budget. 
Therefore, based on the recommendation of the 
Budget Analyst, the Finance Committee and the 
full Board of Supervisors approved all of the 9.0 
new FTEs, but placed an eight-month reserve on all 
Department-related salary funds, with the 
understanding that the Department should be in a 
position to request the release of some or all of the 
recommended reserved funds from the Finance 
Committee, based on a review of the Department's 
progress in filling the current vacant and proposed 
new positions with qualified staffpersons and 
effectively managing the Department. 

Comments: 1. The Department of Elections currently has a 

total of 24 FTE 1 permanent positions budgeted for 
FY 2001-2002, for a total permanent salary cost of 
$1,405,144. In addition, the Department has 
$900,000 of Temporary Salary funds, which 
represents approximately an additional 19 FTE 
positions. As shown in Attachment I, provided by 
Mr. Minasian, of the 24 FTE permanent positions 
budgeted in the Department, as of the first week of 
October, of 2001, 10.9 FTE positions were filled and 
13.1 FTE positions were vacant, representing a 
54.6 percent vacancy rate. 

2. However, according to Mr. Minasian, 11.35 FTE 
of the 13.1 FTE vacant permanent positions are 
currently filled with temporary staff, performing 
similar functions, in the same or in similar 
classification levels. Therefore, there are actually 
only 1.75 FTE vacant positions in the Department, 
for which the work is not being performed by either 
a Permanent or a Temporary staffperson. 
Furthermore, Mr. Minasian advises that all of the 
upper-level management positions in the 
Department of Elections have now been filled. 

Ms. Tammy Haygood, was appointed to be the 
Director of Elections on August 1, 2001. Ms. 
Haygood advises that when she was appointed, the 



1 The 24 FTE permanent positions are shown in Attachment I as 26 permanent positions, 
including 15 full-time positions, six positions at 0.75 FTE and five positions at 0.90 FTE. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Department of Elections only had two Permanent 
employees. According to Ms. Haygood, the 
Department has been working very hard to fill all 
of the vacancies with permanent positions, but, 
that there have been numerous delays due to the 
cumbersome process of recruitment, transitioning 
of temporary employees to permanent positions, 
provisional appointments, establishing permanent 
lists for hiring, hiring of temporary employees, etc. 

3. As noted above, one of the reasons the subject 
salary and fringe benefit funds of $2,015,719 were 
placed on reserve was the uncertainty of the 
Department's ability to implement its proposed 
reorganization plan. During the Spring of 2001, the 
Department of Elections, under the previous Acting 
Director, presented a new reorganization plan (see 
page 1 of Attachment II), which would change the 
Department's organization from four functional 
divisions to two operating division and one quality 
control unit and from six managers to three 
deputies in order to allow for increased controls and 
accountability. Part of this reorganization called for 
the hiring of nine additional permanent positions, 
as part of the FY 2001-2002 budget, which was 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

However, Ms. Haygood now advises that she has 
drafted a new reorganization plan, which is 
included on page 2 of Attachment II to this report. 
According to Ms. Haygood, the new reorganization 
plan further flattens the organization within the 
Department of Elections to provide that the Voter 
Services, Campaign Services and Outreach 
Services Divisions, are not overseen by an Elections 
Manager position, but, rather by Chief Clerks 
which report directly to the Director of Elections. 
Furthermore, Ms. Haygood advises that she has 
needed to change some of the originally budgeted 
position classifications, such that one 1408 
Principal Clerk position was temporarily 
exchanged (Txed) upward to a 1410 Chief Clerk, 
and one 1844 Senior Management Assistant was 
Txed downward to an 1840 Management Assistant. 
Such Txing of positions does not require Board of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Supervisors approval. Ms. Haygood advises that 
she plans to make other changes to the 
organizational structure, including other 
substitutions or reclassifications to better meet the 
needs of the Department. 

4. As discussed in Attachment III, provided by Ms. 
Haygood, the Department is actively preparing for 
the upcoming November 6, 2001 election, and is 
implementing various actions, some of which are 
likely to result in the need for additional funding. 
For example, as noted in Attachment III, the 
November 6, 2001 Voter Information Pamphlet is 
currently 127 pages and the ballot is on two cards, 
although the FY 2001-2002 budget assumed a 
Voter Information Pamphlet of not more than 100 
pages and a one card ballot. As of the writing of 
this report, the Department does not yet know the 
additional printing, postage and other costs that 
will result from these changes. Ms. Haygood also 
advises that the Department is creating a third 
layer of field support by setting up a transfer site in 
each of the 11 Supervisorial Districts to house one 
Elections Systems and Software (ES&S) service 
person to specifically assist with the voting 
equipment and one Department troubleshooting 
staffperson to quickly deploy field supplies, which 
is not expected to result in any additional costs to 
the Department. 

As stated in Attachment III, Ms. Haywood advises 
that she initially authorized the purchase of 600 
cell phones for the poll worker's emergency use on 
Election Day at a cost of approximately $50,000, or 
approximately $83 per phone. Mr. Minasian 
advises that Nokia previously provided 
approximately 600 free cell phones to the 
Department in FY 2000-2001, but approximately 
75 cell phones were not returned by the staff to the 
Department. Therefore, the Department did not 
return these approximately 75 cell phones to Nokia 
since there was no system in place to insure the 
return of the cell phones by the staff. As a result, 
Nokia has refused to offer the free phones for FY 
2001-2002. Ms. Haywood advises that all of the cell 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



phones, including the 75 cell phones which were 
never returned, have been deactivated and that the 
Department is not currently paying for any calls on 
these phones. Neither Ms. Haywood nor Mr. 
Minasian could advise whether the Department 
incurred any costs for calls made on these cell 
phones in FY 2000-2001. 

Mr. Minasian advises that AT&T has just now 
agreed to provide 525 free cell phones to the 
Department of Elections on election day for the 
Department's use. In addition, Mr. Minasian 
reports that the Elections Department has 
approximately 200 cell phones that it acquired from 
the Police Department's surplus property that will 
be used on election day. Therefore, the previously 
planned purchase of 600 cell phones is not needed. 
Ms. Haygood reports that a procedure will be 
instituted this year, to deduct the cost of the cell 
phone and charges, from the individual staffperson, 
if the cell phone is not returned to the Department. 

In addition, Ms. Haygood reports that AT&T 
previously offered free telephone calls on Election 
Day. However, as discussed in Attachment III, 
AT&T will not offer that service this year. The 
service is estimated to cost $10 per month per 
telephone. Assuming two months of service for the 
November 6, 2001 election and the December 11, 
2001 runoff election, this service for 725 cell phones 
would cost approximately an additional $14,500. 

As discussed in Attachment III, the Department 
also anticipates requiring additional Temporary 
staff, beyond what was budgeted in FY 2001-2002 
to conduct two elections, due to the space 
limitations in City Hall. Ms. Haygood advises that 
the Department of Elections FY 2001-2002 budget 
was developed under the assumption that the 
Department would move its operations to another 
location, outside of City Hall. In order to minimize 
the need for hiring Temporary staff to compensate 
for the lack of space in City Hall, the Department 
has also obtained the use, on a temporary basis, of 
approximately 3,500 square feet of space at the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



City-owned 240 Van Ness building for the six- 
month period from October of 2001 through March 
of 2002, which would result in an estimated cost of 
$30,000 for repairs and maintenance. The 
Department is not currently paying any lease costs 
for this space. Even with this additional space, 
although the number of staff and the cost of such 
additional Temporary staff is not precisely known, 
Ms. Haywood estimates that an additional 25 to 30 
percent of budgeted Temporary Salary expenses, or 
approximately an additional $225,000 to $270,000 
may be required to conduct the two previously 
anticipated elections in FY 2001-02. However, Ms. 
Haywood reports that Overtime expenses are likely 
to be less than budgeted, since Elections employees 
are not permitted to work any overtime hours 
unless the hours are specifically approved by the 
Director. 

Ms. Haygood also advises that additional Voter 
Services' personnel have been hired to (1) purge the 
voter rolls, which was behind schedule, and 
threatened the integrity of the November 6, 2001 
election, (2) allow voters to register up to 15 days 
before the election, rather than the current 29 days 
before the election, based on new State legislation, 
and (3) to support the State reapportionment effort 
to establish Senate and Assembly Districts in San 
Francisco, which is not part of the 
Reapportionment Project (See Item 8, File 01-1773 
of this report). The estimated additional cost for 
these personnel is included in the preliminary 
estimates of $225,000 to $270,000 for additional 
Temporary Salary funds provided above. The 
Budget Analyst notes that the anticipated 
additional Department expenditures noted in 
Comment No. 4 will require a supplemental 
appropriation of at least $269,500 to $314,500 
($14,500 for cell phone service plus $30,000 for 
repairs and maintenance at 240 Van Ness plus 
$225,000 to $270,000 for Temporary Salaries), 
which does not include the additional costs of the 
Voter Information Pamphlet and ballot, which have 
not yet been estimated. All of these additional costs 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

would be subject to approval by tbe Board of 
Supervisors, on a retroactive basis. 

5. In addition to the expenditure issues discussed 
in Comment No. 4 above, Mr. Minasian and Ms. 
Haygood advise that because of the likelihood of a 
December 11, 2001 runoff election for the City 
Attorney, the estimated cost of the pending 
supplemental appropriation will further increase 
for the Department of Elections. The FY 2001-2002 
budget only included funds for two elections during 
the fiscal year, in November of 2001 and March of 
2002, and did not include funds for any run-off 
elections. Ms. Haygood also advises that there may 
also be a need for a run-off election during the 
Spring of 2002, for the Board of Directors for the 
Municipal Water and Power Agency, if the ballot 
initiative (Proposition F) is approved on the 
November 6, 2001 ballot. As of the writing of this 
report, the Department could not identify the cost 
details for a run-off election, that would be included 
in the Department's supplemental appropriation 
request. However, Mr. Minasian advises that run- 
off elections in San Francisco generally cost 
between $1.5 million and $2.0 million. Mr. 
Minasian reports that the Department of Elections 
will develop an estimated budget for a potential 
December of 2001 run-off election, which will be 
available for the Finance Committee meeting on 
October 17, 2001. 

6. As a result of the Department filling many of the 
FY 2001-2002 budgeted Permanent Salary 
positions with Temporary staff, similar to last 
fiscal year, the Department will likely overspend 
their budgeted Temporary Salary funds, and will 
underspend their budgeted Permanent Salary 
funds. As shown in Attachment IV, which is the 
Monthly Salary and Fringe Benefit Projection 
Report provided by Mr. Minasian, based on the 
Department of Elections' expenditure patterns for 
approximately the first three months of the fiscal 
year, from July 1, 2001 through September 28, 
2001 there will be a projected shortfall of 
Temporary Salary funds by the end of the Fiscal 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Year ranging from $877,921 to $1,653,109. 
Conversely, based on the same three-month period, 
the Department is anticipated to have a surplus of 
Permanent Salary funds in all three Divisions, 
totaling $664,218. Based on this same rate of 
spending, the Department's FY 2001-2002 
budgeted overall Salary accounts (Permanent, 
Temporary, Overtime and Premium Pay) are 
projected to result in a deficit of $1,169,615 at the 
end of FY 2001-02, as shown on Attachment IV. 

In response, Mr. Minasian advises that the 
projected higher range of the $1,653,109 shortfall 
in Temporary Salary funds is highly inflated 
because it is based on the pay period from the last 
two weeks of September of 2001, which reflects a 
much higher than normal Temporary staff level, 
due to the proximity to the November 6, 2001 
election. Mr. Minasian further advises that if the 
vacant Permanent positions in the Department are 
filled according to the estimated start dates that 
are shown in Attachment I, Mr. Minasian projects 
that the Department of Elections should have a 
surplus of $664,218 in Permanent Salaries by the 
end of the fiscal year. However, Ms. Haygood 
advises that it is unlikely that the Temporary 
Salary funds that are currently budgeted in FY 
2001-2002 will be sufficient to cover the costs of the 
November of 2001 and the March of 2002 elections, 
alone, primarily due to the continuing inefficiencies 
caused by City Hall space constraints and other 
factors. Furthermore, if one or more run-off 
elections are held, the Department will incur 
further additional expenses, which have not, to 
date, been identified. In any event, any additional 
projected shortfalls would be included in the 
Department's pending supplemental appropriation 
request. 

7. As shown in Attachment IV, the Department 
spent $156,671 of Salary-related funds during the 
pay period ending September 28, 2001, which 
resulted in a remaining balance of $1,894,467 of 
Salary funds for the Department. The requested 
release of reserved funds include $1,716,830 of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Salary funds, such that the Department only has 
$177,637 ($1,894,467 remaining balance less 
$1,716,830 on reserve) of unreserved Salary funds 
currently projected to be available. Given that the 
expenditure rates of the Department are increasing 
as the November 6, 2001 election draws nearer and 
more Temporary staff are hired, the Budget 
Analyst estimates that the Department only has 
sufficient Salary funds for approximately one more 
pay period, which ends on October 12, 2001, prior 
to needing this subject requested release of 
reserved funds. 

The Department therefore requests that this 
request for release of reserved funds not be 
continued, since the Department will otherwise run 
out of funds to pay its existing staff. 

8. Furthermore, assuming a run-off election is held 
on December 11, 2001, Mr. Minasian projects that 
the Department will need to spend an average of 
approximately $190,000 per pay period from now 
through the March of 2002 election. This is in 
comparison with the approximately $250,000 per 
pay period that was spent during the October of 
2000 through January of 2001 period during last 
fiscal year, when Temporary Salary and Overtime 
expenditures were not carefully monitored by the 
Department. Based on these projected spending 
patterns, the Budget Analyst estimates that the 
Department will completely run out of all 
appropriated salary and fringe benefit funds by 
approximately mid-February of 2002. The Budget 
Analyst has not conducted a separate analysis of 
expenditure rates for non-Salary funds. 

9. In summary, (1) the Department currently has 
13.1 FTE vacant permanent positions which is a 
54.6 percent vacancy rate for the 24 FTE 
permanent budgeted positions. However, only 1.75 
FTEs of these 13.1 FTE positions are actually 
vacant and the remaining 11.35 FTE vacant 
permanent positions are currently occupied with 
Temporary staff, (2) a new Director of Elections 
was appointed on August 1, 2001 and the three 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

permanent Deputy Director positions are now 
filled, (3) a new reorganization plan is being 
proposed, wbich changes the proposed new 
reorganization plan that was proposed during the 
Spring of 2001, or approximately six months ago, 
under a previous Acting Director of Elections, (4) 
thus far, two positions have already been Txed and 
the Director plans to make additional substitutions 
and reclassifications of positions to better meet the 
needs of the Department, (5) additional 
unanticipated costs of $269,500 to $314,500 will be 
incurred for cell phone calls, repair and 
maintenance of space at 240 Van Ness and 
additional Temporary Salary expenses, and such 
additional costs do not include the additional, but 
unidentified costs for the Voter Information 
Pamphlet and ballots, (6) there is a likelihood of 
run-off elections in both December of 2001 and the 
Spring of 2002, the cost of which is not currently 
detailed, which will result in the need for a further 
increase in any supplemental appropriation, and 
(7) the Department will fully expend all of their 
unreserved Salary funds by approximately October 
12, 2001. 

Given that (1) the Department will fully expend all 
of their unreserved Salary funds by approximately 
October 12, 2001, (2) the Department's initial 
progress in recruiting new permanent management 
staff for the Department, (3) the short timeframe 
until a potential runoff election, which will result 
in the Department expending nearly all of their 
budgeted funds by mid-February of 2002, and (4) 
the existing need for additional Temporary Salary 
and other funds, the Budget Analyst is inclined to 
recommend approval of the requested $2,015,719 of 
funds be released from reserve at this time, despite 
the fact that the Department still (1) has a higher 
than desired vacancy rate, (2) the Department is 
proposed to be further reorganized, and (3) 
retroactive approval of expenditures that currently 
exceed the Department's budget will be requested 
from the Board of Supervisors by the Department 
in the near future. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Release the requested $2,015,719 reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachments I 
Page 1 of 3 









































O) 














































>. 






.c 










>> 




































JO 
















JO 




















2 




a 




C 




c 




u 






.H? 






c 




TO 


























OD 




o 




0) 






JO Q% 






























c 
o 
ex 
a 




c 
o 

Q. 

CL 




if 




c 
,2 




E 

1 






ra oj 

51 






E g 
t: - 
ra "J 

Q. -O 




E 
1 












s 




m 




a 




CO 




CD >% 

to n 




» 




a. 












CD >, 
TO TO 




a. 




























- 10 








en 










. CO 
















'5 




ai 




E 




£ 




to P 




73 




c 






§2 






w ■ 




'5 






c 






a. 
ra 

Q. 

E 




m 

on 

X 

a 

E 
a 




> 

c 




> 

u 

c 








c 

CD 

a3 

T3 




n 

c 
g 






2 o 






~Z. "to 

C to 

c o 

§1 




-Q 
C 

g 

c 






i 






U 






aa 

c 




CD 




a."— 




ca 
o 

?! 

a E 

— S 
■S >~ 

P -o 

11 
c § 

t Q. 




^ 






a £ 






a) d 

CL *"_ 




^ 






E 






j5 








n 




to 




O) en" 






oi 






o 5 






C7> w" 










o 














£ 




§ 




f establishin 
ional proces 
p staff 






c 






i- -o 






c « 




c 






U 










1 

T3 

c 

o 
a 






CL 
>- 

ta 




o 

CL 

a 








o 
o 






II 






..5 o 

-O Q. 

to m 

5 § 




'o 












c 






"O 




■o 




to o — 






o 

Q. 






i 3 

2 — " 






O to 
to > 
to O 




o 
a. 












"O 

o 

c 




c 

E 




DD 
<D 

"co 

c 




Q 

ra 

c 




IHR in proce 
onducting pr 
erformed by 






^ 5 






"x c 

C c 






2 CL 

o en 




c 

i I 












o 




5 




o 




o 






a a 

Q. .£ 
01 cu 




to a 






o ca 






— D 

rr to 




t: w 












o 




0) 




o 




o 








a c 

3 I 






O 0) 






S § 
















Q- 






CL 




CL 




u o a 




T3 J3 








ex a. 






D o 






c. 








O 








Ifl 




r** 




o 


o 






CO 


co 






tn 






o 








o 


CO 




CO 






< 






oj 








co 




en 




TT 


en 






T 


lT> 




CO 


p- 








OJ 


OJ 






to 
















^T 




-7- 




-r 








^r 


en 






CO 


CNJ 




CO 


tD 










en 






^T 










M 


_J 

o 






r~" 








CN* 




o 




r-~ 


o" 






CO" 


oi 




CO 


co" 








CO" 


^.* 






^r 




CO 












en 




TT 




en 




CM 












OJ 






cn 












■^ > 










^r 






— 


u 


















,p " 














































co 


s 
































































~~ 




















































































































CM 






CM 












m 






g 




o 




o 




o 




o 


g 






g 


g 




g 


o 






g 


g 


g 






g 




g 














































































3 




o 




o 




c3 




o 


o 






o 


o 




a 


o 






CD 


CD 


3 






3 




o 
















CO 




CO 










co 












CO 










CO 


co 


















































































TO 






co 




CD 




(O 




CO 




co 


o> 






CO 


^ 




CD 


Ol 






CD 


ai 


CO 






CD 




to 








c 


































































o 










































































































































o 




O 




o 




o 




o 


o 






o 


o 




O 


g 






g 


o 


g 






g 




g 








n 






2 




^ 




5 




J 




5 


2 






5 


5 




C 


o 






o 
g 


2 


























r^ 
















o 


r^ 






CN 


r-. 




CD 








CO 


3 






3 




r^ 








r 






































CO 






CO 






















■o 




TJ 








































■a 






















X 




X 








































X 






















1- 




h- 








































1- 






















































































to 


c 




03 






C 




"O 




T3 
ffl 




c 








C 

ra 






C 








TD 
0) 








c 

CO 






c 

CO 








u 






















o 




































o 






iZ 


CD 
> 




iZ 






ta 

> 




LI 




il 




> 








ra 
> 






> 








LL 








CO 

> 






> 










































































-Q 




ID 


CN 




►N 




T 




CO 




CO 


„_ 






o 


„ 




CO 


CO 






CTT~ 


I^ 


o 




to 


_ 
















LO 








>T) 




CM 




O 


s 






LO 


h- 






C^J 








LD 








h- 

















U 






IN 




O 








-T 


■<!• 






^r 


■* 




U 


co 






O 


CO 


■"T 




CO 


*T 
















< 


o 






























< 














o 
























o 








































-r 






























































































































O 


o 










































u. 








LU 






U- 








< 


< 






U. 




LL 
































u_ 








U. 






LL 








LL 

O 








u_ 




U_ 








0) 


















Q 






< 








< 






< 








(J 






< 




< 








E 
m 

e 


















o 






h- 








>-- 






1- 












H 




h- 












ta 








O 




o 






Q- 








01 

a. 






CY) 

a 








.-* 

UJ 


z 

UJ 






CO 
CL 




m 

CL 














rr 








-z. 




> 






2 








5 






I: 








00 


if) 






2 




r 














< 








o 




< 






LU 








UJ 






UJ 








o 






UJ 




UJ 








^ 






a. 








LL 




I 






1- 








r- 






1- 








O 


a 






r- 




H 






















Tf 


































































c 




a.i 




























to 


to 






























































CO 


n 
























■it 








3 










u. 








U. 






u. 
















U_ 




U_ 














o 
















U_ 








Li_ 






IL 








< 


< 






U_ 












« 
























< 








< 






< 
















< 




< 








E 














< 










P 








H 






(- 
















H 




1- 














a. 










> 






</> 








CO 






CO 








UJ 


UJ 






CO 




00 






















< 




5 






a 








0_ 






0. 








X 


I 






CL 




a 














_j 








CO 




^ 






5 








S 






S 








O 


O 






2 




:; 














X 








D 




•■I 






UJ 








UJ 






UJ 








s 


£ 






UJ 


















a 








w 




1- 






p 








H 






H 












1- 




►- 








c 

a 






CO 




CO 




co 




cn 




CO 


CO 






00 


cn 




o 


o 






a 


a 


a> 




g 


tr> 




m 












O 




o 




O 




o 




O 


o 






o 


o 




o 


o 






o 


o 


o 




c:i 


o 




o 








VI 






o 




o 




5 




a 




o 


o 






o 


o 




CD 


o 






o 


o 


o 




o 


o 




o 














'.n 




in 




in 




m 






in 






1/-) 


Lf) 






in 










io 










in 














a 




o 








o 




o 


o 






o 


o 




o 


o 






o 


o 


o 




o 


o 




o 








a 






00 




aa 




5 




EQ 




n 


CO 






nj 


00 




S 


aj 






a 


■1 


S 




oi 


BQ 




gg 







69 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 







>* 


















































a 




-O 














































"O 




■a 




























c 




c 




C 




c 






a 




cu 
































CU 








CU 






E 
o 

t 




E 
6 

t: 
■ 




























E i 1 
a. -o 




E g 1 

"C - 

a <i> 

Q. -O 




| g 

ro '« 




E g" 
tr — 
ra " 
a. O 




































cu >, 




0) >, 




Q) >N 




cu >. 






































■o -o 




"O "O 




•o -o 




•o -o 






O) 




























2 




■ CD 








- CO 










c 




c 


























y) ■ 




"to 8 




to ™ 










'cu 




0) 














































a 




JD 
























o 

CI 




— co 




— ra 

(= (A 




— CO 

c in 




C to 


































CI 




S c 




cu c 




CD c 




CL) c 




■ 


o 




O 




0J 




s 






s 










ra 




ra 2 




%s 




ra ° 




ra ° 




"c 


c 




c 




c 




_c 






c 










1 




I | 




1 1 




11 




E f 




E 










Q. 
Cl 




Q. 
Q. 






cx 












CO 3 




CD 3 




Q. « 




CU 3 

a. '*-_ 




£ 


en 




oi 




CD 




ra 
















CD 




O) to* 




CT « 




oi w" 




Ol to" 




o 
U 


c 








ra 
c 
o 




ra 
c 
o 






C 
O 










c 

O 

ra 
E 




c w 
- 2 




~ 2 




c w 
= 2 




Is 

.^ o 






o 




o 




> 

p 




> 

o 






O 












| TBS 




■9 °- 8= 
1 <6S 




Its 




1 i« 






s 




ij 




a 




a 






a 










CL 




ai c m 
" .9 a 




0) g ■» 

«- .9 Q. 




8 c « 
Z. 2 a 




cu cc to 

" 9 a 






o 




o 




g 




-C 
















£. 




° « E 




o « E 




° ■a e 




o.!2E 






Q. 




a. 




3 




3 






3 










3 




IS gS 




S! §S 




CO o - 




to > cu 
to O — 






c 




c 




"O 




■a 






-o 










TO 




8*2 




8*2 




o a-2 




8 a* 










i s 




i 




e 






S 










E 




2 2>-o 
a. £ to 




2 9--C 




2 g>-o 

Q. .b CU 




2 g« 
a. .5 49 










c 
o 




c 
o 






a 










o 




£ = i 




S -1 




sl 1 




^ § 






CO CL 




ra o. 




























Ct -a o 




Ct "O o 




or -o o 




(V T3 O 






Q - E 








o 




o 






o 










o 








i o • 




x *■ t 

i o • 




i o cu 










a. 




CL 






CL 










CL 




Q o ex 




Q o Q. 




□ O Q. 




Q O Q. 


& 




CO 






CO 






r-~ 




h~ 


^r 




r» 






o 


















in 








in 








CD 




5 
o 


in 






T 










r- 








CM 




CO 




o 






CO 








CO 








CO 








^r 












CO 






r-_ 




CO 






r~- 


uo 








o 






























c-j 






*r 












co' 










co" 
























cm" 








C\l' 












in 


en 






co 






m 




tr 
















u> 






^r 








^ , 








1 ^- 








CO 






u 




































































ra 






































































o 


3 














































































































































CN 






CN 








































CVJ 
























o 






p 






o 




o 


p 




o 


o 




o 




o 






o 








p 








p 








p 












































































"to 


o 






O 






o 




o 


S 




o 


o 




o 




o 






o 








o 








o 








o 












CO 






en 




CO 






co 


CO 




p 




CO 






CO 








CO 








n 








CO 












































































■a 
c 


CO 






CO 






CO 




CD 


en 




CD 


en 




CO 




CD 






CD 








CD 








to 








CD 


















































































































































O 






p 






p 




O 


o 




o 


o 




o 




a 






o 








O 








p 








p 












































































n 










































































































































"D 


O 






o 






h- 




O 


r* 




o 


r*- 




CN 




en 






00 








CO 








CO 














r 


"" 






*" 










*" 






*" 






■"" 








































s 






































































"a 






































































X 






































































l- 










































































































































■6 


c 


C 






c 






TJ 




-a 






-o 






c 




"O 




c 
















C 








c 










ra 






ra 










a 












ra 




a) 




ra 








ra 








CO 
















u 


u 


































































LL 


> 


ra 
> 






ra 
> 






LL 




LL 






iZ 






ra 
> 




<L 




ra 
> 








CO 

> 








> 








CO 

> 










— 






— 






























_ 

















^ 








„ 










r*» # 






N 






CN 




N 


r~ 




n 


^ 




^r 




10 




s, 


,_ 






en 


,_ 






01 


,_ 






en 


CO 




















'T 




-r 


'O 




^T 






v 








CO 

o 

rt 


r^ 






CO 

o 


r^- 








h- 








o 






o 














CO 




00 


co 




CO 






CO 




o 




■^ 






•? 






o 


■^1- 






o 


^ 








h- 

t 






r- 






*~ 




,_ 


, ~ 




•" 


•■ 




T_ 




< 




"~ 






"~ 






, ~ 






T ~ 
















































































































































u_ 






U. 
































LL 
U_ 








u. 

LL 








LL 








LL 
LL 








< 






< 
















Z 

O 
en 

V 


o 
f/J 

v 














-i 








•f 








< 








< 






E 
c 


H 

a. 






h- 

a. 






';' 




or 

LU 


LU 










< 

o 






en 
CL 








H 
en 

a 








1- 

tn 
a. 














« 


2 

ijj 
















X 

o 


X 

O 




U 

< 










LL' 
■:' 






2 

LU 








LU 








ILI 








IU 






c~" 


k 






H 






< 




CD 


en 














O 






H 








h 








H 








h- 




















r - 
co 




1D 


r- 

'■:■■ 














m 






































u 






LL 






CO 












n 














ti- 








u. 








u_ 
















LL 






u. 
































ll. 
















a 








u ' 






a 


< 






< 






a. 




I 


X 




: ; 


^ 














< 








< 








< 








■X 






E 


H 






H 


























H 








1- 








1- 








i- 








01 






m 


























< 

( ) 






tyj 








<n 








03 








05 






c 


a. 






a 






2 




z 


Z 




' r i 


5 












a. 








a. 








a. 








CL 






~ 


5 






: ; 






X 




II 


en 










rr 






:-■ 








S 








"_• 








:; 








LU 






LU 






I . 




o 







D 


3 








•r 






UJ 








LU 








LU 








LU 








F 






h- 










(X 


or 






-J 








r- 






H 








H 








H 








K 






e 
a 


en 






09 






ai 




0) 


(71 




.7) 


en 




'.•) 




o 




a 


O 






a 


o 






O 


O 






o 


O 






o 






a 






• .. 




o 


' J 




Q 


o 




o 










































o 






■ j 










o 


O 




O 


o 




o 




o 




O 


o 






o 


o 






o 


o 






Q 


o 








m 


















in 




in 


U J 




r, 








n 










n 








n 
















o 






' , 






'" 




a 


o 




o 


o 




Cj 




^ 




cj 


C3 






C3 


o 






CD 


o 






i'J 


o 






a 


oa 






CO 






CD 




CO 


CO 




-XJ 


00 




CO 




CO 




CO 


CO 






CO 


CO 






CO 


CO 






CO 


j j 





70 



Page 3 of 3 



CD 



H 
O 

o 
a. 

\- 
z 

LU 

























































o. 
















■a 




T3 




>. 








E 

CO 
















j» 








X] 




X) 


















t2 




E 




T3 
CO 




"a 

CO 




co se 
















£■ 




^ 




E 




E 




ai-2 
















c 




c: 

CO 




o 
t: 




o 

■c 




f| 
























CO 




CO 


















u 








o_ 




CL 




T3 CO 






























c — 
o >. 

U XI 




















— - 




c 




at 

c 


























'CO 




'co 




























X] 




XI 




















c 




c 












Q) £ 
















a 

c 
ro 




c 




c 
o 




c 
o 




E | 
5 £ 












c 

E 




E 

i5 

O- 




E 
co 




c 

3 




c 




S. 

CO Q. 

10 O) 












E 




o> 




Dl 








di 




o'.E 














O 




c 
x: 
!2 » 

XI 0) 
<U Q. 

o a) 




c 
1c 

£ cu 
xi li 

a c 

CO §. 

o g 




c 
c> 

CO 

o 
o 




c 
o 

CO 

o 




■cr co 

CO X) 

** >s 

o TO 
** ro 

TT CO 

■v ^= 

co ro 

il 




















Lo ro 




Q. 




Q. 


















0) c 




CO c 




c 




c 




•t o 
















u o 
° S 

Q. > 

c 2 




o o 
o s 

Q. > 








c 1- 

co "S 




c w 

o " 
















Q S 




cc ? 




ra o_ 




CO o. 






















x i 

Q 5 




°- E 

Si 




5h 




o 2 
a. a. 










£■ 






o 


TT 




CO 


CO 






co 






en 




o 




ai 




O 






< 












CM 






co 












r^- 






CO 


*T 




ro 




CO 


to 




r~- 


in 


















^r 


CD 




O 






"3 


o 




to' 


*T 




ccT 


^-' 






CNj" 






^T 






O 








ID 


o 






T 






CO 








CO 


















T 


O 


CO 


— 


(J 






































^r 




O 


3 




































"~ 


"~ 




























































CM 








CNJ 














CN 












cu 




o 


o 




o 


o 






O 






o 






o 


o 






















































ra 




o 

CO 


o 
co 




o 

CO 


o 






o 

CO 






o 

CO 






o 

CO 


o 

CO 
























































C 




CD 


O) 




CD 


o> 






CD 






CO 






01 


CD 






















































d> 
























































































CI 




o 


o 




o 


o 






o 






o 






o 


o 
























































"co 












































"D 




o 


h- 




o 








o 






o 






N 


o 












r 




*~ 






*" 








*" 






*■ 








*~ 












a 












































■a 




























■a 
















X 




























X 
















h- 




























h- 


























































•a 


c 




TO 












c 

CD 






c 

CO 






T) 
































U 






CO 




















lZ 


co 

> 




il 






li 






ro 
> 






ro 
> 






LU 








( 




































































en 






en 






















XI 




o 






o 








co 






CO 




T 




O 
















<o 






r^ 






o 






o 




>» 


r^- 


^f 

















■* 


co 






^r 






'!" 






^r 




CO 


^T 


CD 




























p> 






h" 


























































CO 

LU 


























u. 






u. 






U. 


u. 




DC 


























u_ 






u_ 






u_ 


LU 




3 








co 


















< 






< 






< 


< 




H 








E 
c 


















H 






t- 






1- 


H- 




Q 
Z 
UJ 

CL 










< 


it: 

< 




z 

s 


Z 






CL 






(I) 

Q. 






CL 


CO 

a 














> 


> 




o 


o 






5 






2 






:-" 


2 














o 


o 




K 


K 






UJ 






JU 






1U 


LU 




X 












z 


z 




D3 


m 






J- 






h 






1- 


h- 




LU 

a 






















































































LU 












r- 


F*. 






























H 












'D 


CD 
CO 






























o 












" 




^ 


*" 






LL 






u. 






U_ 


U. 




HI 












_J 














U- 






u_ 












o 








1 

c 




a 


cr 




X 


i 






< 






< 






< 


< 




C£ 




j 






LU 

u. 

z 


UJ 

u. 

z 




o 


o 






(/) 
0. 






H 
CO 

a 






1- 

co 

n. 


H 
co 

n. 




0- 
< 


1— 

UJ 








z 


z 




m 


111 






5 






2 






7i 


2 




H 


a 


« 








UJ 


UJ 




UJ 


UJ 






UJ 






UJ 






UJ 


UJ 




O 


D 


D 














Q 


Q 






i- 






1 - 






h- 


F 




I- 


m 


U) 




c 
o 




o 


o 




o 


o 




o 


o 




o 


o 




O 


o 


CT 
















o 


o 




o 


O 




o 


o 




o 


o 




O 


o 


O 






















m 


<i> 




• i, 


<n 




«/") 


in 




in 


en 


m 
















o 


' 1 




o 


O 




o 


o 




o 


■ :> 




o 


C3 


O 












a 




cx> 


os 




CD 


co 




3 


GO 




a 


* 




m 


aj 


CD 











71 



Page 1 of 2 












































*5 




■ 
o i 

e-s 

<^~ 

a> r 

oO 












WQ. 






> 







1 








> 






1 









8 




72 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



5 o 



_ e 

s t 



o u 5 
"3 E f 

Q ~Z f 


m E B 



5 | 



« g 



5> S 



2 = o 

S30 



2 3 ^ 
w = 









*£■ 










u « 












.9- E 






o 2 




g. 


Q. -° 




E 

























If 
1 1 

£ E 



If 

o a, 

9-E 



O o 

o | 


< ° 
o 







I e 


1 £■ 






















s »£■ 




< - 


< «• 


















O o » 




2 E 


£ E 






■sea. 




o a> 


o « 






























£•!■" 




f «i 


^ «j 




te 






































! 




















g. 


1 
















1 


1 £■ 








«! 








< e 

g w g 




£ E 








6 a 5 




t) i 












































SJj 




£S 








5 g 












■" UJ 















73 



Attachment i: 
Page 1 of 2 

* Department of Elections [£/ Jir!PI# XA Tammy Haygooi 

City and County of San Francisco \£l§Bew*S$y^*/ Director 




October 4, 2001 

To: Debra Newman 
Budget Analyst 

From: Tammy Haygood 

Subject: Request for release of reserve, FY 01-02 salary funds for the Department of Elections 
Request for release of reserve, Redistricting 

When I was appointed to the position of Director of the Department of Elections on August 1, 
2001, the department had two permanent employees. Since that time, we have been able to make 
two additional permanent appointments and seven more provisional appointments to 
permanently budgeted positions. The department is moving quickly to fully staff budgeted 
positions. 

The department is moving forward with plans to facilitate the November 2001 election, the 
probable result of which will require a December 2001 run-off election. The department is 
implementing a number of new programs to increase professionalism, and improve the quality 
of poll inspectors and clerks. The department is focused on making the absentee voting process 
more efficient, given the space limitations of City Hall. Finally the department is implementing 
a third layer of field support for the polls by setting-up eleven transfer sites. One transfer site 
will be located in each supervisorial district and will house one ES&S service person and DOE 
troubleshooting personnel. These sites complement the troubleshooting expertise of Field 
Election Deputies, FEDs, and the support staff in City Hall. The transfer sites will also store 
field supplies for quick deployment to polling locations. 

The filings for the November 2001 election have necessitated a Voter Information Pamphlet, 
VIP, totaling 127 pages and a two-card ballot. The budget assumed a VTP of not more than 100 
pages and a one-card ballot. Cost impacts are not yet known. Within the current budget year, 
the department will present a proposal where revenues from paid arguments and candidates will 
be sufficient to pay the cost of publication of the VIP. 

The budget was based on a process efficiency model that can only be implemented in space that 
is unrestrictive. At the time the budget request was submitted last spring, the assumption was 
that the department would move from City Hall. However, the department's space in City Hall 
is very restrictive, requiring more labor units for each associated task. These space constraints 
are reflected in the need for additional temporary staff that was not budgeted. In other areas, 
however, the department has been able to mitigate space limitations by obtaining and bringing to 
minimal building standards additional space at 240 Van Ness Ave. While the cost of the repairs 
required to use the space at 240 Van Ness for non-office functions was not included in the 

74 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place - Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102-4634 
Voice (415) 554-4375; Fax (415) 554-7344; Absentee Fax (415) 554-4372; TDD (415) 554-4386 



Attachment III 
Fage 2 of 2 

department's budget that cost was greatly lower than the expense of hiring temporary workers to 
compensate for the lack of space in City Hall. The estimated cost for the use of 240 Van Ness, 
including maintenance and cleaning, for the period from October to March is $30,000. 

Unanticipated additional Voter Services' personnel were hired and will continue to be needed for 
the following: 

1 . Purging of voter rolls, 

2. Support of the 15 day close and 

3. Support of the Redistricting Task Force. 

The purging of the voter rolls was behind schedule due to unplanned staff lay-offs at the end of 
the last budget year and threatens the integrity of San Francisco's November 2001 election. 
These lay-offs left the department dormant with no one to update the voter files. The department 
has purged and updated voter records and has implemented new methods of doing this. 

New legislation allows a voter to register or change their registration up to fifteen days before the 
election. This new legislation requires voter services' staff to complete an influx of voter 
registration while completing signature checks for absentee ballots and early voting. 

The Board of Supervisors recently passed the ordinance enabling the redistricting task force, 
which the Department of Elections is preparing to support. However, the budget anticipated that 
the task force would be empanelled in the summer of this year, prior to the election busy seasons. 
The department will support the redistricting effort and perform the required reprecincting by 
hiring additional staff in the voter services and MIS areas. 

I have authorized the purchase of additional equipment and supplies necessary for Election Day 
activities, which were not anticipated in the budget. 

Six hundred cell phones were ordered for the poll worker's emergency use during Election Day, 
at a cost of approximately $50,000. In the past Nokia provided phones at no charge to the 
department, with only the requirement that they be returned after the election. Last year the 
department had no system in place to guarantee the return of the phones. As no phones were 
returned to Nokia, Nokia refused to offer the service this year. Therefore the department will 
purchase the phones this year. The service for these phones will also need to be purchased. In 
the past, AT&T offered free service on Election Day. However, due to the demand for free 
service in the New York area, AT&T will not be extending the offer this year. 

Please call me if you require additional information or clarification. 



75 



Attachment :I\ 





c 


Ifl 


o 


c 







o 


^ 


o 


o 

a 


o 


UJ 


Q. 


"o 


& 




re, 


i- 


n 


o 


m 


b 


<N 


r 

n 


"? 


CL 





Q > 





— .3 


























































o 


en 


CN 


CO 






a 








I s - 


I s - 




CO 




cn 


















™ c 






en 


m 


T 








a 


CN 








TT 




o 






















ected 
f(defic 
jstme 






a 


n 


s 


CN 








OS 






tq 


Cj 




ao 




CO 






















to 


8 


I s -" 


s 






CO 


r-- 






CD 


CT>" 

co 








CO 

CO 
























CN 


co 


CO 






CO 


co 
























































































o "? t5" 


















^ 


















" 


















3 *"> 






















































"S = 






















































n) 
























































« 




























































8 


O 


Q 


a 












































_L c 






O 


a 


o 












































co m 






o_ 


o_ 


o_ 


o 
























o. 
























-T_ 


co' 


CN 


en" 
























ro 












































































JO 10 
























































3 "I 
























































<n ^ 
























































CO 












































































































Cfl 
>- in 

■o £ """" 
9 • 5 






a 


en 


CN 


00 






I 








r- 


I s - 




CI 




m 






















en 


CO 


-cr 








CN 








s 




CD 


























o 


co 


I s - 


CN 








a> 






co_ 




ao 




CD 


















a- 3 1 

O 3 <" 






a" 


co" 


ct~ 


pi 






CO 


ft 








Cn 








Q 






















en 


CO 




I s - 






m 






oo 


c-0 








CO 
























CN 


co 


co 






to 


CO 






















































































-- rs "** 






















































& e-^ 


















""■" 


















— ' 


















3 CD 
























































-o c 
c .9 






CO 


CO 


-y 


O 






en 


,_ 






I s - 


CO 




§ 




ao 
























I s - 


CO 


CD 


CN 






o 


CN 








m 






in 
























CO 


CO 


CD 


a> 








OS 






c0_ 


en 








I s - 












































































r o 






CO* 


a" 


tr 








CO 


I s -" 








o" 




00 




m 




















is » 

ID O 






CD 


co 

CN 


ao 


CO 






a 


p: 






s 


CO 








I s - 

CO 




































CN 


"■" 
















CO 




















>> "5 






N 


■v 


co 


5" 






cn 


o 






CO 


,_ 




8 




^ 




















co 3 






co 


CO 


CD 


CM 






r- 


-<r 






s 


CD 






I s - 




















"*"-o 






T 


CO 


CD 


I s - 






°l 


00 






co> 




uS 




UO 




















c ra 
go* 






CM* 


oi 


rv." 


cn 






CO 


in 






I s -" 


cn 




CO 




co" 
























~ r " 






CN 






o 


CD 






^~ 






n 




m 




















3 'C 
























































O 03 
























































Q. 
















































































































CO 






CN 


CO 


o 


a 






CO 








CO 










CO 




















3 






£ 


n 


o 
















■V 










I s - 




















"o 






00 


CD 


co 






o 








I s - 






cjD 




co 




















CO 






CO 


T-" 


id" 


CN 






CO 








□o" 






T-" 




o" 




















t 






r- 


T 


co 


en 






CN 








C3 










CN 






























T ~ 






T 


















CD 












































































a 
























































e 
























































3 
























































U 


























































o 

QE 






s 


N 


s 


m 

■v 






g 








8 






8 




CO 






CD 
I s - 


I s - 

ao 




Q 

o 


o 












en 


I s - 


-«r 








O 








o 






o 










co 


-c 




o 










to 
3 






8 


CO 

CD 


s 


en" 
O 






8 








8 






o 




m" 




m* 


O 

CM 


s 




1" 










-Q 






<T 


T 


CO 


t_ 






OS 








CM 










to 

cm" 




in 

cm" 


CO 


CO. 






























































c 


























































a 




















































o 






OJ 

o 


_aj 


















































<3 






CD 


^3 


















































CM 






CD 


JO 


















































C01 






c 


ra 


















































TO 






U 


> 


















































CO- 






ro 


re 


















































CO. 






2 


CD 


















































.cr 








-O 


















































cn 






£ 




























a 


CL 






X 


ex 














3 

E 

S 






ca 

3 

2 


1 

cn 


























a 


O 

| 

CO 






ex 




CO) 

ES 

u 


















-C 


-a 
























ca 


C 

CO 

t 






c 

CO 

t 














"ra 
3 

CO 


cn 

TO 

c: 




TO 
CI 
CI 


C 

TO 












•c 

to 












■c 

_ra 


3 


> 

CO 






a 

u 


c-0 














ra 


r 




CD 

ra 


5 












ra 




C 








ro 


a 

c 


c 






a 

c 


CI 

c 














_ra 




E 


l/D 

TO 












CO 




a 








en 


w 


'w 






"^5 


t5 












"3 


c 


ra 
cn 

CO) 

C 

c 

ta 

E 




CD 
> 

ra 
■Q 

CD 
O 
CD 


a 


00 








in 

c 
o 

o 
_cu 


c 
o 
c 
ra 


g 


en 
£ 

c 

E 


CO 
G 

s 

a" 


3 




g 

o 

a. 
E 


c 

o 

I 


c 

a 




1 

r 

4) 


3 

c 
a 


X3 
c 
o 

CC3 




E 

3 

E 
E 




B 




TO 

X) 


CD 
t 

3 

u 

CO 

c^ 




a 

& 

E 










o 


s 


to 


a. 


o 




CJ 


a 


e" 




> 


o* 


E 






o 






o 




e 


3 


3 








3 


a. 


< 


C 


p- 




1- 


B 


a 




o 


c. 


CL 




D- 




t- 




ca 


_J 


CC 




a. 


Z 


■a 
a 












§ 


s 


g 






















































CD 


a 


a 










































en 












in 


CO 


in 










































CO 












O 


O 


a 










































:~ 












ao 


aj 


Oj 










































ra 


























































O. 



























































76 



0CT-1Q-23Q1 23:34 



41 c 



IA 617? 



TOTAL P. <32 
P. 02 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 01-1773 



Departments: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 
Department of Elections (DOE) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $253,237 for the Reapportionment 
Project. 

$253,237 

General Fund 

The proposed request by the Department of 
Elections is to release $253,237 of funds that were 
placed on reserve by the Finance Committee in the 
FY 2001-2002 budget to pay for the 
Reapportionment Project. In accordance with 
Charter Section 13.110(d), the Reapportionment 
Project will undertake to redraw the 11 
Supervisorial District boundaries, in accordance 
with the 2000 U.S. Census data and the 
requirements of Federal and State law. 
Specifically, these funds are to pay for the staff, 
operating expenses and outside consultants to 
reapportion the 11 Board of Supervisors Districts, 
based on the 2000 U.S. Census data. 

All of the $253,237 of funds requested for this 
Reapportionment Project for FY 2001-2002 were 
placed on reserve, pending the hiring of the 
Director of Elections, the formation of the Elections 
Task Force, the identification of the consultant(s), 
and submission to the Finance Committee of 
specific budget details, including consultant hourly 
rates and the estimated number of hours. The 
Department of Elections is now requesting that all 
of the $253,237 of funds be released from reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: 



$92,354 


Salaries 


7,158 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


112,825 


Non Personal Services 


10,410 


Materials & Supplies 


10,490 


Capital Equipment 


20.000 


Services of Other Departments 


$253,237 


Total 



Comments: 



The Attachment, provided by Mr. Ara Minasian of 
the Department of Administrative Services, 
identifies the Department of Elections budget of 
$253,266 for the Reapportionment Project. Mr. 
Minasian advises that the attached budget is $29 
more than the requested release of reserve due to 
rounding of some of the amounts in the attached 
budget. 

Ms. Jennifer Novak of the Department of Elections 
advises that the proposed budget was developed 
during the Spring of 2001, and based on the last 
redistricting effort in 1990 in San Francisco. 

1. As noted above, one of the reasons that the 
$253,237 was placed on reserve was because the 
requested consultant(s) had not yet been selected 
and therefore the specific hourly rates and number 
of hours to be provided had not been submitted to 
the Finance Committee. The attached 
Reapportionment Budget includes an estimated 
$40,000 for consultant services, based on an 
estimated $150 per hour, which would result in a 
total of approximately 267 hours. Ms. Novak 
advises that depending on the skills of the 
Elections Task Force, the Task Force may want to 
hire an outside consultant to conduct various tasks 
in assisting the Elections Task Force in redrawing 
the Supervisorial District boundaries (See 
Comment No. 6). 



It should be noted that the Department of Elections 
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in March of 
2001 for a consultant to assist in the 2001 
Reapportionment Project. Ms. Novak advises that 
five consultants responded to that RFP, but, that 
no consultants were hired, since the Project was 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

put on hold. According to Ms. Novak, it will 
ultimately be the responsibility of the Elections 
Task Force to determine whether a consultant 
should be hired for the Reapportionment Project 
and to select the specific consultant(s) through a 
RFP, or other process, to conduct work which may 
be needed. 

2. Ms. Novak advises that the Maptitude 
Computer/Software system budgeted for $3,558 
would be used to link the 2000 Census data to 
specific Census blocks in the City in order to 
automatically calculate population, ethnic and 
other Census data by block during the 
reapportionment effort. According to Ms. Novak, 
the Arch View Street Map Computer/Software 
system budgeted for $10,490 is a more advanced 
mapping system that will upgrade the 
Department's exiting Maplnfo System which is 
extremely labor intensive and will permit the 
Department to more readily transfer the voter 
reapportionment data into the correct districts and 
precincts. Ms. Novak advises that the requested 
Arch View Street Map system is also compatible 
with the Department of Public Works and the 
Department of Telecommunications and 
Information Services mapping and computer 
systems. 

3. According to Ms. Novak, a Newspaper 
Advertising budget of $45,000 is included in the 
attached budget in anticipation that the Elections 
Task Force may want to place a full-page 
advertisement in the San Francisco Chronicle, once 
the Elections Task Force has decided on 
preliminary reapportionment Supervisorial District 
boundaries in order to notify all San Francisco 
residents of the proposed changes. As of the writing 
of this report, Ms. Novak could not provide specific 
cost details for a full-page advertisement. In 
addition, the proposed budget includes $1,100 for 
newspaper announcements of public meetings and 
hearings to be held by the Elections Task Force, 
based on an estimate of $4.00 per line, which would 
provide for 275 lines of advertising. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



4. Ms. Novak advises that all other counties in 
California, except San Francisco, have now 
completed their reapportionment of Board of 
Supervisors districts. Although the 
reapportionment effort has not yet begun in San 
Francisco, Mr. Minasian advises that the same 
level of staffing, that is shown in the attached 
Reapportionment Project Budget is still projected 
to be required to complete the work. 

5. The Budget Analyst notes that at the time of the 
FY 2001-2002 budget hearings, these 
Reapportionment Project funds were placed on 
reserve, for various reasons, including the fact that 
a Director of Elections had not yet been hired. In 
addition, the Department lacked any permanent 
upper-level management staff and, in fact, there 
was an overall vacancy rate of 50 percent in the 
Department of Elections. As noted above, the funds 
for the Reapportionment Project were placed on 
reserve until the Director of the Department of 
Elections was hired. On August 1, 2001, Ms. 
Tammy Haygood was appointed to be the Director 
of the Department of Elections. 

6. As noted above, one of the other reasons that the 
$253,237 for the Reapportionment Project was 
placed on reserve was because the Elections Task 
Force was not yet formed. The Elections Task Force 
is the organization that is responsible for 
redrawing the Board of Supervisors district lines, 
in accordance with specific legal requirements. On 
September 24, 2001, the Board of Supervisors 
approved an ordinance creating a nine-member 
Elections Task Force (File 01-0840), and providing 
that three members be appointed by the Board of 
Supervisors, three members be appointed by the 
Mayor and three members be appointed by the 
Director of the Department of Elections. In 
addition, the Director of Elections serves ex officio 
as a non-voting member. In accordance with the 
ordinance, the membership of the Task Force is to 
be representative of the communities of interest, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

neighborhoods and the diversity in ethnicity, race, 
age, sex and sexual orientation. 

Ms. Tammy Haygood, the Director of the 
Department of Elections advises that to date, no 
members have been appointed by the Mayor and no 
members have been appointed by the Director of 
the Department. Mr. Victor Young, the Clerk of the 
Rules Committee for the Board of Supervisors 
advises that public notices have been issued 
regarding the Board of Supervisors three 
appointments. The Board of Supervisors is 
currently accepting applications, through October 
28, 2001, for the Board's appointments to the 
Elections Task Force. Although the enabling 
legislation, creating the Task Force has now been 
approved, to date, no members have been appointed 
to the Elections Task Force and therefore the Task 
Force has not yet convened. 

7. Currently, the City's Charter does not set a 
deadline for convening the Elections Task Force 
and does not set a deadline for the redrawing of the 
Supervisorial District lines. However, according to 
Ms. Novak, since the next Board of Supervisors 
elections will not be held until November of 2002, 
or approximately one year from now, she advises 
that the 11 Supervisorial Districts should be clearly 
defined in sufficient time to allow for candidates for 
the Board of Supervisors to file and campaign for 
that election. 

8. It should also be noted that on the November 6, 
2001 Municipal Election, there are two 
Propositions (Propositions G and E) that may 
potentially affect the Elections Task Force in San 
Francisco. Proposition G would change the 
procedures for redrawing Supervisorial District 
lines to require that the Elections Task Force be 
appointed by January 8, 2002 and that the 
redrawing of the District lines be completed before 
April 15, 2002. The Elections Task Force would 
also be required to use Federal Census data that 
has been adjusted to correct for any undercount or 
overcount of the population if that information is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 17, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



available. Furthermore, if the voters approve 
Proposition E which is also on the November 6, 
2001 ballot, the Elections Commission that would 
be created under Proposition E, rather than the 
Director of Elections, which is presently the case, 
would be responsible for appointing three members 
to the Elections Task Force. Under Proposition E, 
the Elections Commission, which would oversee the 
Department of Elections, would have seven 
members, with one appointment each by the 
Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, the City Attorney, 
the Public Defender, the District Attorney, the 
Treasurer, and the Board of Education. 



Recommendation: 



Continue the requested release of $253,237 of 
reserved funds for the Reapportionment Project 
until after the November 6, 2001, given that (1) the 
Task Force has not yet been convened, (2) a 
consultant has not yet been selected and (3) the 
November 6, 2001 election includes two 
Propositions that could significantly affect the 
appointments to the Elections Task Force. 




Larvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



REAPPORTIONMENT BUDGET 2001 



Attachment 



EDLSTRIC 


TING, REPRECINTING & ELECTIONS TASK FORCE BUDGET -CONSIDERATIONS. . -r-.- 




■■-,'. .'.."' ■-.' .. ... -:_ -~.. 


ODsnltant 








budget 


■ttj 




] S 1 50.00/ hr per person 






40.000 


021 






omputer/ 


















iftware 


vlaptitudc for Redisricting 






3,558 


040 






2-Large Monitors 






1.700 


040 




Sum of budget 














obj 


a IT 






| 






005 




Assistant 


Suzanne Berg 


1471 


SI682bi-95 mo. (21 025/hr, 


32.667 


005 




011 




Field Workers 


jary Petnnger/John Martin 


2-1403 


SI596bi-2 5mo (19 95/hr) 


16.461 


005 




013 




Computer Ope/Data Entry * DIMS testing 




2-1471 


SI682bi-4mo (21 025/hr) 


27.509 


005 




021 




Cleric - Elections Task Force 




.25-1426 




10.170 


005 




040 




Overtime 






5.577 


Oil 




060 




Fringes 


7.158 


013 




081 




MIS Support 


Eddy Ching - DT1S 1200 hours 


20.000 


081 




Grand Total 






i ! 








ravel 
















Hotel & Food 




500 


021 








Transpo nation/Travel 


(ClaremoM Conference, DIMS User Mtgs & 6+ Sacramento Trips) 


1.200 


021 






















jmputer/ 


















»ftware 


Arch View 








495 


060 








Arch View Street Map 2000 








9,995 


060 
























ippliel 




















Computer/Monitor 


1 - Elections Task Force 






2.000 


040 








Software - MS Office 


1 - Elections Task Force 






750 


040 








Paper/envelopes 


Elections Task Force 






2,400 


040 






Postage/messanger/Express Delivery 


Elections Task Force 






750 


021 








Coping costs/ Color copies 


Elections Task Force 






400 


021 








Misc. 


Elections Task Force 






1.200 


021 








Graphics 








500 


021 








Printing Cost 


500 Sup dist maps ( 1 1 disc) 






3.200 


021 








Newspapers 


Elections Task Force 






500 


021 








Newspapers/Advertising 








45.000 


021 
























iblic 


















settings 


Facilities Rental Costs ( Min. 1 1 Dist.) 


Elections Task Force 




11x150 each site 


1.650 


021 








Newspaper Announcements 


Elections Task Force 


54 00/ line 


1.100 


021 








City Watch 


Elections Task Force 














City Hall Meetings -S450 00 for first 3 hrs. 




450 


021 








Off Site Meetings -11125 00x11 for first 2 hrs 




I2J75 


021 








Website 


Elections Task Force 




2,500 


021 












1 








embers 


















Parking/Milage Reimbursements 


Elections Task Force 




1.500 


021 












I 
GRAND TOTAL 


j 

253,26« 














1 














1 













83 



1 of 1 



10/10/01 5:13 PM 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: GailJohnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, October 24, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin. 
Members Absent: Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:12 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



011833 [Reserved Funds, Mayor's Office of Community Development] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Mayor's Office of Community Development (File 010621, 

Resolution No. 324-01), in the total amount of S260,000 (5100,000 from FY 2000 and 5160,000 from FY 

2001), to provide economic development services targeted at the Asian Pacific Islander community in San 

Francisco. (Mayor) 

10/9/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst's Office: Pamela David. Director, Mayor's Office 

of Community Development: Lily Lo, Executive Director, Northeast Community Federal Credit Union: Philip 

Nguyen, Executive Director, Southeast Asian Community Center. 

Release of res en'ed funds in the amount of $260,000 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:59 PU M 3 3 "J 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 24, 2001 



011678 [Appropriation, Ethics Commission] 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance re-appropriating $38,346 of General Fund Proposition O funding for one position to perform 
investigations by the Ethics Commission for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, and amending Annual Salary Ordinance 
for Fiscal Year 2001-02. 

(Companion measure to File 01 1679.) 

9/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Schedule for October 24, 2001, meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Ms. Vida, Ethics Commission; Charlie 

Marsteller. 

Amended on page 1, lines 1 7, 22 and 25, and on page 2, lines 9, 13, 15, and 18, by replacing "$38,346" with 

"$34,947. " Further amended on page 2, line 13, by replacing "$30,677" with "$27,958, " and on line 18, by 

replacing "$38,346" with "$34,947." 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance re-appropriating $34,947 of General Fund Proposition O funding for one position to perform 

investigations by the Ethics Commission for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, and amending Annual Salary Ordinance 

for Fiscal Year 2001-02. 

(Companion measure to File 01 1679.) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



011679 | Amending Annual Salary Ordinance 2001-02, Ethics Commission] 
Supervisors Leno, Daly 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 171-01 (Annual Salary Ordinance 2001/02) reflecting the creation of one 

position at the Ethics Commission. 

9/24/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Schedule for October 24, 2001 , meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Ms. Vida, Ethics Commission; Charlie 

Marsteller. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



01 1 578 [Business and Tax Regulations Code Amendment] 

Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Gonzalez, Maxwell, McGoldrick 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code by amending Article 1, Section 

8(h), to provide that an appeal to the Board of Appeals of an action by the Zoning Administrator or Director of 

the Department of Building Inspection stopping work under or suspending an issued permit does not suspend 

the action pending the Board's decision; providing that this ordinance shall apply retroactively to appeals filed 

on or after the date of introduction. 

8/27/0 1 , ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 9/26/200 1 . 

Speakers: None. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 2:59 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 24, 2001 



011743 [Compensation for City Employee Called to Active Military Duty] 
Mayor 

Ordinance amending the 2001-2002 Annual Salary Ordinance to entitle City officers or employees called to 
active duty with a military reserve organization to receive from the City the difference between the amount of 
the individual's military pay and the amount the individual would have received as a City officer or employee 
had the individual worked his or her normal work schedule. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

10/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; 
Philip Ginsburg, Deputy City Attorney; Pamela Levin, Controller's Office; Alice Villagomez, Human 
Resources Department, Employee Relations Division; Wallace Levin, Veterans Affairs Commissioner; 
Raymond Wong, Commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars. 
Amendment of the Whole making minor technical amendments adopted. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



011709 [Prevailing Wage] 

Resolution fixing the highest general prevailing rate of wages, including wages for overtime and holiday work, 

for various crafts and kinds of labor as paid for similar work in private employment in the City and County of 

San Francisco at the rates certified to the Board by the Civil Service Commission on September 17, 2001. 

(Civil Service Commission) 

9/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Kate Favetti, Executive Officer, Civil 

Service Commission. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



011 775 [Water Contract Amendments, Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park] 

Resolution approving contract amendments to water supply contracts between the San Francisco Public 

Utilities Commission and the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park (Public Utilities Commission) 

9/27/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; William Laws, Public Utilities 

Commission. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 2:59 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 24, 2001 



011733 [Water Pipeline and Easement Relocation] 

Resolution authorizing the relocation of Crystal Springs Pipeline Numbers 1 and 2 within the City of South San 
Francisco along Bayshore Boulevard in accordance with a Water Supply Lines Relocation Agreement, and the 
subsequent transfer of easements. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, 

Real Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services; Tasso Mavroudis, Project Manager, Public 

Utilities Commission, Utilities Engineering Bureau. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



Oil 737 [Water Pipeline Replacement] 

Resolution authorizing the execution and performance of an Exchange Agreement with the City of Brisbane 

relating to the replacement of Crystal Springs Pipeline Number 1 . (Real Estate Department) 

10/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 11:02 a.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 2:59 PM 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 






CITY AND COUNTY 



// 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-1833 



October 18, 2001 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
OCT 2 3 2001 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Hearing to consider the release of $260,000 in reserved 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for 
contractual services to provide economic development 
services to the Asian Pacific Islander community in San 
Francisco. 

$260,000 ($160,000 from FY 2001-2002 CDBG funds and 
$100,000 from FY 2000-2001 CDBG funds) 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) CDBG funds reserved by the Board of Supervisors 

According to Mr. Roger Sanders of MOCD, in April of 
2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution 
allocating FY 2001-2002 CDBG funds and Program 
Income m the amount of $38,663,433 (File No. 01-0621). 
As part of this allocation, the Board of Supervisors 
reserved $160,000 for economic development assistance. 
Also, in April of 2000, the Board of Supervisors reserved 
$100,000 of the FY 2000-2001 CDBG budget (File No. 00- 
0488) for the Mayor's Economic Development Pool 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

pending submission to the Finance Committee of a 
program plan and budget details. 

If the requested release of reserved funds is approved, 
MOCD would award $260,000 for a joint venture of the 
Northeast Community Federal Credit Union (NECFCU) 
and the Southeast Asian Community Center (SEACC) to 
provide economic development services to the City's Asian 
Pacific Islander population. Each organization would 
receive $130,000. The proposal submitted by the two 
nonprofit organizations states that they would collaborate 
to provide business assistance services to Asian-owned 
small businesses in San Francisco, with a focus on 
Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Japanese businesses. The 
proposal further states that the SEACC and NECFCU 
have worked together for more than 10 years to assist 
small businesses in San Francisco. According to the 
proposal, services to be provided would include loan 
packaging, marketing assistance, business plan 
development services, financial sourcing (finding sources 
of funds including funds from financial institutions, 
government agencies and non-government agencies that 
have business oriented programs), accounting assistance, 
licensing assistance, and general business assistance. 

According to the proposal, the Community Center would 
focus on assisting businesses in the Filipino, Korean, and 
Japanese communities while the Credit Union would 
focus on assisting businesses in the Chinese community. 
Further, the proposal states that the two organizations 
would work with other nonprofit Asian Pacific Islander 
organizations in the community (to provide services or 
obtain referrals) including the Korean Center, Inc., Wu 
Yee Children's Services, and the Chinatown/North Beach 
Campus of City College of San Francisco. 

The proposal states that the program would primarily 
serve low-income, small-business owners of Chinese, 
Filipino, Korean and Japanese descent. The proposed 
program would provide services Citywide but would focus 
on certain neighborhoods for particular ethnic groups, 
such as Chinatown, Mission, Richmond, Sunset and 
Visitacion Valley for Chinese businesses and Japantown 
for Japanese businesses. Services for the Vietnamese 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

population are already provided by the Southeast Asian 
Community Center through an existing MO CD contract. 

The proposal identifies the following as the goals the 
program will attempt to achieve by June 30, 2002: (1) 
increase access to capital for 14 businesses by developing 
loan packages and obtaining business loans (2) provide 
technical assistance to 60 new and existing businesses 
and support new business expansion (3) provide follow-up 
technical assistance to 26 start-up or expanded businesses 

(4) improve capacity of two Asian Pacific Islander non- 
profit agencies to provide services to small businesses and 

(5) increase access to business assistance in three 
underserved Asian Pacific Islander communities 

Budget: MOCD has provided the following summary budget data 

for each proposed organization: 

(1) Northeast Community Federal Credit Union 
Salaries $75,700 



Fringe Benefits 


14,300 


Sub-Contracted Services 


20,000 


Rent 


9,000 


Equipment 


4,000 


Utilities 


2,000 


Phone 


1,500 


Insurance 


1,000 


Supplies 


1,000 


Training and 




Promotional Materials 


1,000 


Travel/Conferences 


500 



$130,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



(2) Southeast Asian Community Center 

Salaries $70,100 



Fringe Benefits 


16,816 


Sub-Contracted Services 


18,013 


Marketing Materials, 




Printing and Postage 


9,655 


Rent 


7,020 


Travel 


1,926 


Utilities 


1,800 


Phone 


1,050 


Insurance 


1,100 


Audit 


1,000 


Supplies 


800 


Equipment 


720 



TOTAL $130,000 

Attachments I and II, provided by MOCD, include details 
to support the budget summaries above. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Albert Lerma of the MOCD advises that MOCD 

issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) during August of 
2001 and received eight proposals. Attachment III, 
provided by MOCD, lists the eight nonprofits that 
submitted proposals, their proposed cost for providing 
services, and a summary of the proposed services. Mr. 
Lerma notes that organizations were not required to 
submit proposals for the full amount of funds available 
and thus, some proposals are for lesser amounts. Mr. 
Lerma advises that one proposal, submitted by Soul'd Out 
Productions, was disqualified because the services 
proposed were unrelated to the criteria specified in the 
RFP. 

2. Mr. Lerma advises that the remaining seven proposals 
were evaluated by the Economic Development 
Subcommittee of the MOCD's Citizens Committee on 
Community Development. Mr. Lerma advises that the 
Subcommittee made a recommendation to the Citizens 
Committee on Community Development to award the 
funds to the proposed joint venture of the SEACC and the 
NECFCU and the Committee concurred with the 
Subcommittee's recommendation. The joint proposal by 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET.ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

NECFCU and SEACC requested $260,000, with $130,000 
to be provided to each organization. 

Mr. Lerma advises that the Subcommittee's evaluation of 
the proposals focused on three criteria: (1) background 
and technical expertise in providing business assistance 
and loan packaging services (2) ability to demonstrate 
joint ventures or community partnerships to provide 
maximum outreach as well as leveraging additional 
resources with agencies that represent the broad 
spectrum of services available in San Francisco to serve 
the Asian Pacific Islander community and (3) a detailed, 
comprehensive work plan that includes clearly identified 
performance goals in targeting the Asian Pacific Islander 
Community and a detailed outreach strategy. 

3. Mr. Sanders advises that $38,013 of the requested 
release of reserved funds would be for Sub-Contracted 
Services as follows: (1) NECFCU would receive $20,000 
for an Outreach Consultant for 400 hours at $50 per hour 
(2) SEACC would receive $8,000 for a Marketing 
Consultant for 160 hours at $50 per hour (3) SEACC 
would receive $6,479 to sub-contract with a Filipino 
nonprofit organization for Filipino Outreach Support and 
$3,534 to sub-contract with a Korean nonprofit 
organization for Korean Outreach Support. Mr. Sanders 
advises that the sub -contracts for Filipino and Korean 
Outreach Support would fund anticipated costs for 
developing program expertise in the Filipino and Korean 
non-profit communities. Mr. Sanders advises that in 
reserving the funds for which the release is requested, the 
Board of Supervisors had encouraged MOCD to develop 
its program expertise among various ethnic groups in the 
Asian Pacific Islander demographic group. Mr. Sanders 
advises that the expenses to be paid with the Filipino and 
Korean Outreach funds would include staffing, space 
rental, telecommunications, supplies, equipment and 
insurance. Mr. Sanders advises that MOCD would require 
NECFCU and SEACC to obtain MOCD approval before 
the organizations could hire the Consultants or award the 
Outreach sub-contracts. Mr. Sanders advises that in order 
to comply with Federal and City requirements, the 
organizations would be required to advertise and seek 
proposals for the services required. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



4. The joint venture proposal states that SEACC is a 
501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Service 
Code and has provided business assistance services and 
loan programs to small businesses through MOCD since 
1988 and the Federal Small Business Administration's 
Microloan program since 1993. The proposal states that 
for FY 2001-2002, SEACC has received $106,500 in CDBG 
funds, aside from the requested release of reserved funds. 

Mr. Sanders advises that NECFCU is a 501(c)(14) credit 
union under the Internal Revenue Service Code and was 
founded in 1981 to serve the depository and credit needs 
of Chinatown residents. The proposal states that for FY 
2001-2002, NECFCU has received $75,000 in CDBG 
funds, aside from the requested release of reserved funds. 



Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds totaling 

$260,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Schedule A. Part 1. Project Budget (This Project Only) 

Project Name: Asianpacific Islander Economic Development Services 

Organization Name: Northeast Community Federal Credit Union 

Tax ID: 94-2S91498 



ATTACHMENT I 



Pase 1 of 2 



Column A Column B | Column C 1 




Line 


Budgetltem 


2000 CDBG 

Funding' 

Currently Funded 

Project 


2000 Other 

Funding 

' Currently Funded 

Project 


2001 
CDBG 
Request 




1 


Employee Saiaries &. Fringe Benefits IS 71,000.00 


S 82,800.00 IS 90,000.00 




2 jContractual Services — Consultants IS IS |S 20,000.00 




3 iRepairs and Maintenance (not capital projects) IS IS 8,000.00 [S 




4 [Equipment (Purchase or Rental) IS |S 4,200. 00 |S 4,000.00 




5 [Insurance (Workers Comp; Liability; Property; Fidelity, Auto) |S jS 2,000.00 IS 1,000.00 




6 [Space Rental (Lease of Administrative/Program Space) IS 4,000.00 IS 3,200.00 IS 9,000.00 




7 (Supplies (Office Supplies including Stationary) |S |S 7,000.00 |S 1,000.00 




3 [ESC Supplies (Food, Bcddir.;) S |S 3,000.00 S 




9 [Telecommunications (Phone) IS |S 500.00 |S 1,500.00 




10 (Travel/Conferences S \S 920.00 IS 500.00 




11 [Utilities |S JS 2,000.00 |S 2,000.00 




12 |Other IS |S S 1,000.00 




13 |Audit (This item must be completed) |S IS |S 




14 [Homeless Prevsniion activities (for SSG) |S |S |S 




15 j Total Project Costs (Lines 1 thru 14)|S 75,000.00 js 1 13,620.00 |S130,000.00 




1 1 




16 


Program Income (generated from this program only, i.e., fees) IS 


S 140,000.00 IS 





Schedule A Part 2: Total Organizational Funding 



Line | Column A Column B | Column C | Column D 


Part 2. Agency Funding Sources FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 


1 |Mayor's Office of Community Development |S |S 20,000.00 |S 50,000.00 


2 (Mayor's Office of Housing (non-CDBG) |S |S |S 


3 |Mayor's Office Economic Development |S |S |S 


4 | San Francisco Redevelopment Agency |S |S |S 


5 [Department of Human Services |S |S |S 


6 | Department of Public Health |S |S |S 


7 |Private Industry Council ]S |S |S 


8 |Other City Funding (i.e. DCYF) |S |S |S 


9 [Total Other Government Grants (Non-City) [S |S 233,000.00 [S 87,000.00 


10 Total Corporate/Private Organization Contributions |S 1,000.00 |S 37,500.00 |S 35,000.00 


1 1 |Total Contributions from Individuals |S 


12 [Total Leans |S |S |S 


13 | Total Program Income (fees from any source) |S |S 


14 | Total Agency Funding (Lines 1 thru 13)|S 1,000.00 S 290.500.00 |S 172.000.00 


If you need additional space to complete response, please use reverse side of this page 



Schedule B: 2001/2002 Program Budget Worksheet ATTACHMENT I 

Non Profit Organization Name: Northeast Community Federal Credit Union Page 2 of 2 



Line 



Budget Item Column A 



Proposed Budget Request 

CDBG Amount Total Program Cost 



Employee Listing & Job Title 
(Include %Time Assigned to Project) 



Race 
Ethnicirv 



Salary /Wages 



Outreach 0.80 FTE 



Loan Packasino/Techmcal Assistant 0.40FTE 



Assistant Manager 0.10 FTE 



Intake/Reception 0.50 FTE 



Exec. Director 0.20 FTE 



Chinese 



S 32,000.00 



Chinese 



Chinese 



Chinese 



S 13,000.00 



Chinese 



Fringe Benefits/Expenses (Payroll Taxes, Insurance, etc.) 



Total Employee Salaries, Wages &. Fringes (Lines 1 thru 11) 



Business or Individual Consultant Listing 



Outreach Consultant 
Workshop. 400 hrs (SjSSO per hour 



Chinese 



14,900.00 



7,200.00 



,600.00 



Salary /Wages 



52,000.00 



S 14,900.00 



S 7,200.00 



S 13,000.00 



8,600.00 



14,300.00 



S 14,300.00 



90,000.00 



Consultant Expense 



20,000.00 



90,000.00 



Consultant Expense 



S 20,000.00 



Total Consultants (Lines 13 thru 16) 



20,000.00 



20,000.00 



Equipment List 



Amount 



Amount 



Computer (2) &. Printer 



3,000.00 



3,000.00 



Phones &. Fax Machine 



1,000.00 



1,000.00 



22 



Total Equipment (Lines 18 thru 21) 



4,000.00 



4,000.00 



Travel 



Amount 



Amount 



Total Travel (Lines 23 thru 26) 



2S 



Other Program-Expenses 



Amount 



Amount 



PG tx. E, Water 



2,000.00 



2,000.00 



29 



Telephone 



1,500.00 



S 1,500.00 



Rent 



9,000.00 



S 9,000.00 



31 



Other (training & promotional materials) 



2,500.00 



S 2,500.00 



22 



Insuranc: 



1,000.00 



1,000.00 



Total Other (Lines 28 thru 32) 



16,000.00 



$ 16,000.00 



NOTE: not all Schedule A budget items are listed on Schedule B 



Schedule A. Parti. Project Budget (This Project Only) 

'roject Name: API Project 

Organization Name: SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMUNITY CENTER 

"ax ID: 



94-2604543 



ATTACHMENT II 
Pa^e 1 of 2 





Column A 


Column B 


Column C 




.ine 


Budget Item 


2000 CDBG 
Funding 
Cutr-ently-Pup.ded — 
Project 


2000 Other 
Funding 
— G-u rr-ently-P-ufl d s d— 
Project 




2001 
CDBG 












1 


Employee Salaries & Fringe Benefits 


S 85,091 


S 513,356 


S 


86,916 




2 


Contractual Services-Consultants 


S 29,827 


S 


18,013 




3 


Repairs and Maintenance (not capital projects) 


S 4,918 






4 


Equipment (Purchase or Rental) 


S 720 


S 18,173 


S 


720 




5 


Insurance (Workers Comp; Liability; Property; Fidelity, Auto 


S 1,100 


S 10,649 


S 


1,100 




6 


Space Rental (Lease of Administrative/Program Space) 


S 12,182 


S 94,430 


5 


7,020 




7 


Supplies (Office Suppkies including Stationary) 


S 800 


S 8,331 


S 


800 






— _ ^ *. .— — 










8 


too ou^pii^i [1 ouu, ucU^ing/ 




9 


Telecommunications (Phones) 


S 1,400 


$ 13,385 


S 


1,050 




10 


Travel/Conferences 


S 1,075 


S 14,016 


S 


1,926 




11 


Utilities 


$ 1,700 


S 12,459 


s 


1,800 




12 


Other 


S 732 


S 101,968 


s 


9,655 




13 


Audit (This item must be completed) 


S 700 


S 6,500 


s 


1,000 




14 


, , , n ,. ,, „^ „. 














15 


Total Project Cost (Line 1 thru 14) 


$ 106,500 


S 828,012 


s 


130,000 
















16 


Program Income (generated from this program only, i.e., fees 











Schedule A Part 2: Total Organizational Funding 



ine 


Column A | Column B Column C Column D 




Part 2. Agency Funding Source FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 


1 


Mayor's Office of Community Development |S 100,100 | S 100,100 | S 100,100 


2 


Mayor's Office of Housing (non-CDBG) 


3 


Mayor's Office of Ecomomic Development 


4 


San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 


5 


Deparrnent of Human Srecices 


6 


Department of Public Health 


7 


Private Industry Council 


8 


Other City Funding (i.e. DCYF) 





Total Other Government Grants (Non-City) |S 473,604 | S 525,245 | 452171 


10 


Total Corporate/Private Organization Contributions |S 161,920 |S 258,941 | 827848 


11 


Total Contributions from Individuals |S 20,234 | S 8,147 | 3611 


12 


Total Loan? 


13 


Total Program Income (fees from any source) I S 91,219 | S 151,316 | 154758 


14 


Total Agency Funding (Line 1 thru 13) jS 8^7,077 | S 1 ,043,750 | S 1 ,548,498 


: you need additional space to complete response, please use reverse side of this page 




9 



Schedule B: 2001/2002 Program Budget Worksheet 

Non Profit Organisation Name: 



ATTACHMENT II 



Page 2 of 2 
SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMUNITY CENTER 



Line 3uciget Item Column A Proposed Budget Request 

CDBG Amount Total Program Cost 




Employee Listing & Job Title 
(include % Time Assigned to Project 


Race 
Ethnicity 


Salary /Wages 


Salary /Wages 


1 


Victor His, Director 0.10 FTE 


Chinese 


S 7,500 


S 7,500 


2 


Richard Wada, Sr. Analyst 0.4 FTE 


Janpanese 


S 16,800 


S 15,800 


3 


Filipino Business Specialist 0.50 FTE 


Filipino 


S 20,900 


S 20,900 


4 


Korean Business Specialist 0.30 FTE 


Korean 


S 18,400 


S 18,400 


5 


Hoa Nguyen, Accountant 0.10 FTE 


Vietnamese 


S 3,700 


S 3,700 


6 


Leann Luu, Administrative Assistant 0.10 FTE 


Vietnamese 


S 2,800 


S 2,800 


7 






S 


S 


8 






S 


S 


g 






S 


S 


10 






S 


s 


11 


Fringe Benefits/Expenses (Payroll Taxes, Insurance, ect.) 


S 16,816 


S 16,816 


12 


Total Employee Salaries, Wages & Fringes (Line 1 thru 11) 


86,916 


86,916 




Business or Individual Consultant Listing 


Consultant Expense 


Consultant Expense 


13 


Marketing Consultant© 150 Hrs * $ 50/Hr 


S 8,000 


S 8,000 


14 


Filipino Outreach Support 


S 6,479 


S 6,479 


15 


Korean Outreach Support 


S 3,534 


S 3,534 


16 




S 


S 


17 


Total Consultants (Line 13 thru 16) 


S 18,013 


S 18,013 




Equipment List 


Amount 


Amount 


18 


Copier Rental 


S 720 


S 720 


19 




S 


S 


20 




S 


S 


21 




S 


S 


22 


Total Equipment (Line 18 thru 21) 


S 720 


S 720 




Travel 


Amount 


Amount 


23 


Muni B ass 


S 480 


S 480 


24 


Auto Expense 


S 246 


S 246 


25 


Workshop/ Network 


S 1,200 


S 1,200 


25 




S 


S 


27 


Total Equipment (Line 23 thru 26) 


S" 1 ,925 


S 1,926 




Other Program Expenses 


Amount 


Amount 


23 


Printinc 


S 300 


S 300 


23 


Postage 


S 384 


S 384 


30 


Marketing Materials 


S 8,971 


S 8,971 


31 




S 


S 


32 




S 


S 


33 


Total Other (Line 28 thru 32) 


S 9,655 


S 9,655 






Note: not all Schedule A budget items are listed on Schedule B 



10 



i^age 1 or 3 



< si 



_ cj 



< a: 



c » = •- 





;/- 


CO 






CO 






>! 


O 


















Cfl 


00 


ra 


















n 




Q() 
















-^ 






o 










■a 


ps 


! 


ca 


S3 


in 





'— 
















5" 


"2 


re 


re 


u 


re 


"o 


b 



j;^u- w :Oji 



_cj 5 






> _ re n "o '- 2 - t; m 



° 5 P 



§1 

o 5 



.o i: a 



— o 
p a 

ca — 

ca .2 
J * 

a: o 



co _ 

cj o 

'— > 

o o 
00 



en u 



"3 s- 5 

. = DO S 

3 « P 5 

° — " 5L ° 



= o 2 -o p 3 3 



CO _, _;-^ — r^ 



= -a 
3 re 



u. P S -S 



o G to oo 



•S g « u o -p 



n « js -c - 



p 


u 


CJ 








1 ) 






PM 


cfl 












o 









CJ 


re 






cj 




a 


-^ 


u 


< 


u 


~-J 








o 
















3 


- 


SiJ 


co 

CO 








O 
























czr. 


"3 


<U 


u-i 


> 


£ 


>,JO 




Q 


£3 












DO 


— 


>, 





O 


>3 


3 


55 


































r> 


-J 





X 



73 i- o K a « 2 



— — re — ■ • — o 






Q..S P 3 — 



'-5 


ca 

p 


3 


CO 

o 




re 




V. 




T3 

I - ) 


CJ 










re 

n 


u 


M 


ca 




gl 


•- 


_o 


















cj 
u 


5 


CJ 


re 


re 


CO 


o 


CO 












s*l 


jr 


_H 


CO 


re 














re 


re 


£ 


CO 




■■J 


u 


r j 


= 


> 


'- 


.id 



.3 _3 <-J CD 

ca c o 
C-t — > 

s ^:a 
u el 



9 5 = cj 



O o 



< 



D O S w n fl '2 O 



O O co .S 



= O ; S 

u « — "55 2 "3 '5 = 



ca •= a ca .2 



o a-: 5 



- U - y u 



— '- a M 



= •= ca cj - 3 



a, 5 .3 . 

cj -5 > as - 



o :a 
io s> a. 



a = 2 £ 



io O •— — 

•— ? -=T" CO 



S 5.--= 5 2 o 2 5. 



Z 
< 

CO 

< 



U Q 



■ — 


f) 


o 












J2 




0Q 


3 


O 


U 


77, 


77 








CO 


c 


00 


r^ 


O 

CO 


o 


c3 





2 g - £ 
^ ° ■-'> 

'" rr -5 3 
a. > 
ca ** 
u o 
o — 

5 o 
So S 



- ^ .= U s 



J*. ~ 

B 5 



20 

JTJ 



:- ^ -3 O 



r; .2 o _ = - - ~ 

S-«^=-g>co = 
o ^ — 2 •- 



fT . — a. ■-. 3 . r; - u x P r- ■ 



S r* r- CJ 



O u ~ — 



u 



~ 5 



C co to i~^ 
O co co r^ 

• - CJ c3 C C 



— cj ~ j™ — — . j; s 



O co 



CJ o 
C re 



c2 ? 



« r3 S 3 A 2 





CO 

p 


re 


a 


CO 
CO 


U 


O 


~ 


ca 


o 


re 


■ = 


a 


Wl 




CO 


=: 


re 





> — 

p « 



o o o - z - 



i ■ r< 3 S >> E5 Qj I- 1 • "^3 

3-3ts S to = ^^ to — o~' o ~: w 



O O 

> t— ■ 

CJ CO 

Q 



o a 

C to 

2 co 



1'i 

O JJ 



O w ■— -; — i 



O O 

u 2 

CO CJ 

tO —3 

CJ g 

.S ca 

2 w 

re 



i. CJ O 3 -3 

cj jt s ca r= 



-TJJ — 
CO = -^ 



ca — o d 

3 "55 « O „ 

5 .« < to t: — 



S a = S o 



o ■= ^, .£ o 



ca "o •-" 



o -r; =o =r 



■r; 3 •— ' 'S "o > S cj ■- 



S -- ca y 



O 00 
CJ 3 

^- to 

5 "x 

to w 

s* 

CJ 5 



» . .3 £ 



ou ; o - "■ o 
S n f i • re ^ re^ 



^3 CJ - 3 a 

" — ca 
5^ to 

w 2 
o "5 

— CJ 



5 re 

2 "55 
S < 



a 5 » o -S 



— — co ca — 
o. cj b < P 2 
S -2 2 ^ "5 



^2^-^-3^25 












2 .=: - g P ■- 5 



CJ 



jr. > co 



a o o a 



a .2 



2 < 



11 



AllAliiMhNT 111 

Page 2 o± 3 



o cd cd 



5 re 



,_, o 



£ „ 



re g--^-o co oS 



-i — 00 — co 



to 

re 


5 




CO 


co 


o 


u 


u 


u 


to 


CO 

U 


.r 



.= o a a, 
2 S '55 _o 



re ~ 

00 $ 

s U 

IS 

O 00 



U - 
Hi 



.- a " S a 



= F= 2 "2 o ^ O 
•re !"1 re r> •— 3 o 



= w n. re 



i: < 3 



J=> o re ^ J -c 



O ""■ , o 






•a .a 
> 2 



U. -r" •— °° 



? J 1 i 3 .§ 

"S > 

3 re 



Z 5 a 



so = a si - 



<d -a 



,_i CO •— I- 



5 ^ O co 



00 co 



cd co re S .— a 
3j u D.V3 cd .a 
2 a re o M co 



'3 m 

2 u 

2 U 

2 < 

o W 

O oo 



•a S j= 



S O J3 S 



^S^^.^^ a 



_rt 


xs 


re 


g 


' ) 








o 






-j) 






re 




'? 


CO 


u 


M 


— 







D 


u 


j j 


/.•< 






o 


U 


£ 


n 


re 
D. 


a 


o 




U 


A 


a, 


re 


-j 


re 


' — 


O 



■3 cd >>~ 



a S re - 

CD ~ 

=3 D 

o U 

-o r j 

.2 Z 



a 53 as 3 



u ^5 

a ox3 
^ o 



re ^_ 
If I 

Q a 

2 u 

S o 

°? 



CD 

2 '-5 ■- o 

£ a rt 
5 rj re a 

o ^ a 3 



HO 5 

a o 



u oo -re 



"H .2 * 

re co o 



O C 



a <d -a o 



co "O 
co 3 

re re 



- cd 
co 5 
o .- 

'5b °° 
o o 

2f - 



a _ o 
a 5 .u 
u u re 



a o 
9 £ 



u u o ** ra. g 



o u > 



ia 5 



2 oo 



re a 
a a 
re a 



2 2 __. o w a rt 



« ^ 



a ,w a 



h u h a 



K S S re J 



u U 

■° U 
= < 

00 



O — ! 

° "— I 

CD mJ 

a-O 

g & 

.a w 

a z 



— N ° 

pl, -a 

u 2 a 

w * "3 

Zs « 

O ±3 

■das 



a 



00 > 

a co 



.a re 






^ a 

CD .22 2 

re o . fri — G ro ^ 



a o 



2 o "rt 52 -a O re 



-a — 
•r c« 

2 M 

a. a 



re a. 

-a • 

2 3 



a w a jz a 



-a o 



CD CD 



°P "3 °° r-> -a 



"2 3 



U O 



iare^s^.aoo^^.-. 

m •— ■ ri ^i w o <— — -rr - — -• 



z 

7J < 
o 



a co 



O J3 

^ U 



oo 

3 CD 



< i2 >» 



c5 a; co ^ ^ 



is cd w a -a 






D o 

00 co 



U J s 



U 
o 5 



60 

.2 -2 "I 
_ u a 

— > CD 



a -5 .2 o 



J^ JO 

2 "S 

co K 



CD CD .a — 



a o 
■2 > 



^"73 



.2 'w •" « 

5 j? B u 

< >° o u 

•a a°'> 5 

u a C rja 

— la cd W 

y .a w oo 

-a > cd 

CD o CO CO 

co c cd a 

o s-- 5 

w >^ u, 2 

a 1 a c2 3 

a a <— _o 

's g re « 

s 3 o o 

w o a cd 



U 2 
U js 
< .2 

W ? 

oo <-. 



2 o « 



"S5 



CD CD 



o a: 

00 O 



re > C .-- 






P « ^2 
a. S 

-re a 



a w 
o3 'co 



$ -a 

a 53 



M >, " a a 
a "3 a cd a 
2 2 "7j a u cd 



e re 
.2 5 



>^ 2 

re 
a K 



s a»-s--g 



a-- 

CD CO 



22 cd ^ — a a 



a. H .a 3 Fy cd -a 

v — •> o ^_ 3 re 



CD "3 co 
^33 

re _o 



o 

r- 3 

<D » < 

3 3 - w 

•a cd o 
B "° 8 = 
> "2 73 

i s i 

o 73 £ 

rt -- a 

<- 2 « 

P £w 

£ S 2 oo a "-= 

-. l, m u <; o 



>, 


Cij 


re 






01 


u 






[/I 


•;5 










> 






-re 


U 


-^ 


re 




u 


re 


>; 


u 


>i 


.a 




JD 


c 


re 


-3 
O 


a 


CO 

< 








re 


a 




o 


o 




> 


(> 




O 


l-H 


> 



^ a -2 a 



u s 






re -3 -3 a e 



= a a. 



a, 



u -a 

a cd 

CD CD 



^ a -3 
■tS cd e 



■^ uj * 
"—i 2 

o g 00 

— a ca 

al « ^ -a 



^ o § 

■a 2 -a 

.a cd a 

o -a rt 

■•"■» a co 

S3 53 .^ 

p a S 

Im CD 

o -a 



CD rt 



co a a 



re ?ri re — 



a" a 

a o 

o o o 

o cd a 



53 ■ — 
"3 ^ 
CD ■< 

a — 

2^ « 

■3 2 

3 3J 5 

a o a 
a oo " 

5 "a u 
CJ o >» 

"co -3 3 
rt -J 3 

y — a 

~ -5 a 

o ££ 5 

Z U U 



u 

.2 CD 



cd a- 

co <- a 





ir. 

CO 


re 


Uw 




u 












3 


co 


00' 


CD 


< 



12 



s 
a 1 



3 

CO 

H 
Z 

< 

u 

— 



o o -^ 

« * 5 

~ O — to 

O O r- .3 

2 > -o — — 

3 o .2 5 



> c 

— • o 

a > 



o 



o 2 £ 

3 .3 ^ 

o « o 

O O C to 



PL, O S 

< fe.o 

- 3 « 

3 ^ N 

c 3 " o ta 

C -3 S«J3 o 

o i 

EO C3 

CO 



~ o 

O 3 

"-* o 

to ■ — 

° Cd 



■B P 



«.s § g 



_ CO 



00 



i: c s 
« = , *, f 
?ag 

— w ■ — 

<s » £ 

5 -^ « 

< _. to 

■ ■> "^ 

5° > a 

« C O 

» o ^s 

■^ J3 ^ 

o « C 

a o s 

5 &> 

2 81 



oo w 2 



3 > S ■ = 

— 1 > o - 



to p 

o 



Si o o 






3 9 



^ 



>1 


o 


— 


'J 


















c 


n 


£ 


3 


p 


^ 


>•. 


o 

CO 
























o 




.£3 


T3 


_ 


o 







*S 



a r< a 1 > co a 



ttf) 



o - S 

00 — 



C Ji to O •— - 



"3 « 

1 3 

CO O 

■ss 

o o 
co rt 

> a 
'S 3 
.2 '55 
■3 < 

^3 co 
co "o 

5 .2 

a ° 

o 5 



3 3 £ o 



o 

3 
O jD 



_3 . o o 



g S -^ -^ -O c_ 

' 2 M =- - 
co -r- 3 a 



5 o g« .« 






a H o > 



P p 

o -S 



3 u s u 'jj 



u o 

5 5, 

o p 



ATTACHMENT III 
3 or 3 



'J 


o 








o: 






V. 




u 


■-) 


"3 


5 


O 
O 








si 


Ed 


— 








a 

>> 


a 
o 


> 



CO J3 M 

O — = 

5-2-g 

— 3 

a -3 T3 

|S'o 

3 "3 

"° 3 e 

W OT 3 

co "-5 > 

Sol 

1 1 £ 

•a ? ° 

«" 2 ?► 



^^ 3 O 

— co a 

?; o o 



Q 
a] 

1< 
.2 D 

3 cy 

P Q 

3 < 

og 
"^ 9 

00 ^, 



Page 



13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 and 3 - Files 01-1678 and 01-1679 



Department: 



Ethics Commission 



Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



File 01-1678 

Ordinance reappropriating $38,346 of General Fund 

"Proposition O" funding for one new position to perform 

investigations by the Ethics Commission for FY 2001- 

2002. 

File 01-1679 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 171-01 (Annual 
Salary Ordinance FY 2001-2002), reflecting the creation 
of one new position at the Ethics Commission. 

$38,346 

Ethics Commission FY 2001-2002 budget 

In November of 2000, the voters of San Francisco 
approved Proposition O, an initiative ordinance, which 
requires the Ethics Commission to implement a public 
matching funds program for candidates for the Board of 
Supervisors. Under Proposition O, candidates for the 
Board of Supervisors who raise at least $7,500 in private 
contributions and accept voluntary spending limits of 
$75,000 in the general election and $20,000 in the run off 
election, would be eligible to receive public matching 
campaign funds. Proposition O limits the annual cost of 
the new ordinance to $2 per resident or a maximum of 
$1,600,000 per year. According to Ms. Ginny Vida of the 
Ethics Commission, the Ethics Commission did not 
request funding in FY 2001-2002 for the Elections 
Campaign Fund to provide public matching campaign 
funds for Board of Supervisors candidates because no 
Board of Supervisor elections were scheduled in FY 2001- 
2002. For the FY 2001-2002 budget, the Board of 
Supervisors added $100,000 in General Fund Annual 
Project funds to pay for the Ethics Commission's 
administrative costs to implement Proposition O. 

Approval of the proposed ordinances would reappropriate 
$38,346 of the $100,000 General Fund Annual Project 
funds to fund a new 0.67 FTE 1820 Junior Administrative 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Analyst position, for the period from November 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2002, instead of using such funds for the 
administrative costs to implement Proposition O. 

Budget: The budget for the proposed position is as follows: 

0.67 FTE Junior Administrative Analyst 

($45,785 annually at salary step 4) $30,677 

Fringe benefits 7,669 

$38,346 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Vida, the number of formal complaints 

received by the Ethics Commission regarding elections 
has increased in calendar years 2000 and 2001. As noted 
in the attached memorandum (Attachment I), the Ethics 
Commission received 17 formal complaints in calendar 
year 1999 and 34 formal complaints in calendar year 
2000. In the first nine months of calendar year 2001, the 
Ethics Commission has received 11 complaints, which is 
less than the average number of formal complaints 
received in calendar year 1999. Ms. Vida states that the 
Ethics Commission has had a continuing backlog of 19 to 
20 complaints over the past eleven months. Currently, the 
Ethics Commission has one Senior Administrative 
Analyst position to investigate and act on formal 
complaints. According to Ms. Vida, the Senior 
Administrative Analyst spends approximately 70 to 80 
percent of her time conducting complaint investigations. 
The Ethics Commission is now requesting a 
reappropriation of $38,346 of the $100,000 Proposition O 
allocation to fund one limited tenure 1820 Junior 
Administrative Analyst position from November 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2002, to assist in the investigation of 
complaints filed under the Ethics Commission. The 
requested Junior Administrative Analyst position would 
interview complainants, witnesses and respondents, and 
research applicable laws and statutes related to the 
complaint to determine if a violation exists. As previously 
noted, Ms. Vida advises that the requested Junior 
Management Assistant position would not be performing 
duties related to the implementation of Proposition O. 

2. The Budget Analyst notes that if the Board of 
Supervisors approves the reappropriation of $38,346, the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Ethics Commission would have $61,654 in remaining 
funds for the administrative costs to implement 
Proposition 0. Attachment II, provided by Ms. Vida, 
contains the proposed budget for the administrative costs 
to implement Proposition 0. The Ethics Commission 
proposes to hire a Proposition Administrator and a 
Campaign Finance Auditor in March of 2002, and will 
submit an Annual Salary Ordinance (ASO) amendment, 
to approve the two new positions, to the Board of 
Supervisors. The Ethics Commission currently has a 0.80 
FTE Proposition O Clerk, which is funded partially by 
Temporary Salaries, as noted in Attachment II. Ms. Vida 
states that reappropriating $38,346 of the $100,000 
Proposition O allocation would not delay the 
implementation of Proposition O. 

3. According to Ms. Vida, between November 1, 2001 and 
June 30, 2002, the Ethics Commission plans to develop a 
public financing audit manual, draft a public financing 
manual for candidates, and prepare the application and 
related forms for the public financing program. Ms. Vida 
states that the Ethic Commission also plans to develop 
and conduct workshops for candidates and campaign 
treasurers, train auditors from the Controller's Office in 
Proposition O auditing procedures, and review 
applications from candidates for public funds. The time 
frame for conducting these tasks is outlined in 
Attachment I. As stated by Ms. Vida in Attachment I, if 
existing staff spend approximately 465 hours on the above 
tasks, the Commission believes that the Proposition O 
processes will be in place when the two new staff 
members are brought on board in March. However, Ms. 
Vida advises that "staff will probably not conduct as many 
training workshops or send out as many notices as would 
be ideal". As stated by Ms. Vida in Attachment I, 
"Applying the entire $100,000 to Proposition O purposes 
will assure development of procedures to implement the 
new law; however, such application will seriously 
jeopardize the ability of the Commission to handle its 
complaint load". 

4. File 01-1679 would amend the Annual Salary 
Ordinance to create one new limited-tenure 1820 Junior 
Administrative Analyst position. Ms. Vida states that the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Junior Administrative Analyst position would be 
terminated, effective June 30, 2002. 

5. According to Ms. Vida, the Ethics Commission will fill 
the proposed new position on November 26, 2001, if these 
proposed ordinances are approved. Based on the 
remaining pay periods between November 26, 2001 and 
June 30, 2002, the salary requirement for the new 1820 
Junior Administrative Analyst position will be $27,958 
and related fringe benefits will be $6,989, for a total cost 
of $34,947 in FY 2001-2001. Therefore the proposed 
reappropriation can be reduced by $3,399, from $38,346 to 
$34,947. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend File 01-0678 to reduce the proposed 

reappropriation by $3,399, from $38,346 to $34,947 

($27,958 for salaries and $6,989 for related fringe 
benefits). 

2. Approval of File 01-0678 as amended and File 01-0679 
are policy matters for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



PUG-27-1300 22: 13 




Attachment I 
Pa^e 1 of 4 



Ethics Commission 

City and County of San Francisco 



Ca«OI. M. Kingsley 

CHAJRPERSOv 

PaLI H. MfcUJOSTAD 

Viu-:-OiAJRPERS0N 

Isabella H Grant 
COMMISSIONER 

SKaRYN SaSLAFSKY 
COMMISSIONER 

5avid Serrano Sewell 

COMWISSlONI-.R 

Virginia E. vida 

Executive Director 



Date: October 18, 2001 

To: Severin Campbell 

Budget Analyst's Office 
Fax: 252-0461 

From: Ginny Vida /&•*£/. 
Executive Director 
Tel: 581-2301 

Re: Request for Partial Allocation of $100,000 Add-back to Support a 
Temporary Assistant Legal Analyst Position 

This memorandum responds lo your request for information regarding the Ethics 
Commission's request lo allocate a portion (S38.346) of the $100,000 add-back to hire 
a temporary assistant legal analyst to assist with its investigations. We would like to 
start someone in this position on November 1 , 2001, for an FTE of .67 (for the 
remainder of the current fiscal year). This would allow the Commission lo hire a .32 
FTE Prop O Administrator and a .3 1 FTE Prop O Auditor in March. (See proposed 
budget attached.) 

1. The number of complaints processed by the Ethics Commission 

It is difficult to provide a meaningful average of the number of complaints that the 
Ethics Commission receives and processes each year. In general, One Commission 
receives significantly more complaints during years in which there are heavily contested 
elections. For example, in 2000, when all the seats for the Board of Supervisors were 
up in district elections, the Commission received 34 formal complaints; in the prior 
year, it received 17 formal complaints. The Commission has received 1 1 formal 
complaints thus far In 2001. (These numbers do not include the dozens of other 
informal complaints that the Commission directs to other appropriate enforcement 
agencies.) 

The complaints handled by the Ethics Commission are varied and complex, ranging 
from allegations of fraud to misuse of City resources, lobbying and financial conflicts 
of interest. To process a complaint, staff must identify issues, research and learn the 
applicable law, conduct the investigation, and pursue enforcement action. The easiest 
complaints, those that are found to be without merit and can be dismissed. 3re 
processed in two to three months. The more complex cases that appear to have merit 



30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900 • San Francisco. CA 94102-6027 • Phone (415) 581-2300 • Fax (415) 581-2317 
E-Mail Address: ethics commission@ci.sf.ca.us Web site: hnp://v/ww.ci.<>f.ca.us/ethics/ 

~ 18 

TOTAL P. 01 



A'JG-27-1300 22=14 . • ^ 

Attachment I 
Page 2 of 4 

and require enforcement action (settlement, formal investigation, public hearing) can take more 
than a year to process. 

During the budget review process for FY 01-02, the Ethics Commission articulated its need for, 
and sought funds to hire, an additional investigator for this fiscal year. Devoting a portion of the 
SI 00,000 to hiring a legal analyst to assist with investigations is critical to the Commission's 
ability to handle its caseload. Until the November 2000 election, the Commission was averaging 
a caseload of 5-6 complaints. Because 34 complaints were filed last year — 20 of which were 
election-related — the Commission has had a continuing backlog of 19 to 20 complaints over the 
past several months. In the last fiscal year we were able to hire a temporary assistant legal 
analyst for a period of five months to help with investigations. Bui funding for thai position 
ended in June. 

For more than two years, the Commission's single investigator has been able to spend only 70 to 
80 percent of her lime conducting investigations. She devotes the remaining 20 lo 30 percent of 
her time administering the Lobbyist Ordinance and responding to requests for information about 
ethics laws. 

Given the complexity of the complaints and the other limits on their time, Commission 
investigators (past and present) have been able to process only 10 to 15 complaints per year. 
Unless the Commission receives help, it will nol be able to reduce the backlog of 20 existing 
complaints or process the new complaints that will surely be generated during the remainder of 
this fiscal year. Some of the complaints are more than two years old. Those currently pending 
also include several which have progressed to an advanced enforcement stage. As noted above, 
these more substantive complaints take more time to resolve. 

2. Implementation of Proposition O 

The specific tasks that must be undertaken to implement Proposition O in the current fiscal year 
include developing a public financing audit manual (November 2001-March 2002). drafting a 
public financing manual for candidates (Nov. -April), and preparing the application and related 
forms for the public financing program (Nov. -April). Because the Commission must approve the 
forms and manuals, staff must prepare briefing memoranda regarding the forms and manuals. 
(Should Proposition E on the November 2000 ballot be approved, a new Commission will be 
installed in February 2002. In that case, additional staff time will be required to educate new 
Commission members about Prop O and the Commission's oilier mandates.) 

Other specific tasks that must be undertaken to implement Proposition O include developing 
workshop presentations for candidates (Nov. -March); conducting training workshops for 
candidates and treasurers (April); recruiting, hiring, and training the Proposition O Administrator 
and Public Financing Auditor (Jan.-April); training auditors from the Controller's Office in 
Proposition O auditing procedures (April-May); and reviewing applications from candidates for 
public funds (June). 

1 Recently, the investigator has also devoted a significant amount of time to working with DTIS to implement the 
Commission's electronic filing program for lobbyists And campaign consultant. 1 ;. 



19 



AUG-27-1900 22:15 . . ._ 

Attachment I 
Page 3 of 4 



The Commission once estimated that it would require the equivalent of 5.55 FTE staff persons to 
perform these tasks. Because of budgetary constraints, existing staff has had to absorb extra 
duties to prepare for implementation of Proposition 0. Should a temporary assisuint legal analyst 
be hired with a portion of the $100,000 add-back to help with investigations, implementation of 
Proposition O would not be set back. 

Until new staff is hired, existing staff will continue to do all they can to implement the new law. 
Utilizing existing staff to perform some of the Proposition O functions is efficient as well as 
inevitable. Existing staff possess expertise in campaign finance procedures that is fundamental 
to developing the procedures necessary to implement Proposition O. The Commission estimates 
that while it would take a new staff person six months to leam campaign finance law, draft the 
public financing manual, prepare the forms, and develop the workshop presentations on public 
financing under Proposition O, it would take existing staff approximately half that time. 
Assuming that existing staff can devote 465 hours to these tasks in the upcoming months, the 
Commission believes that the Proposition O processes will be in place when new staff members 
arc brought on board in March. 

Nonetheless, given the Commission's overall staffing limitations, staff will probably not conduct 
as many training workshops, or send out as many notices, or provide as much one-on-one advice 
for the candidates and committees, as would be ideal. Likewise, in order to effectuate public 
financing, other matters will be pushed aside. For instance, staff will not be able to conduct an 
analysis of the November/December 2000 supervisorial election in order to prepare for the public 
finance program associated with the November 2002 election. The Commission's auditor will be 
conducting fewer regular audits of campaign committees in order to prepare the public financing 
audit manual and train the Controller's audit staff in the special procedures of auditing campaign 
committees to test for compliance with the California Political Reform Act as well as the San 
Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance. Other policy initiatives adopted by the 
Commission, such as developing new governmental ethics legislation and promulgating rules on 
incompatible activities for City officers and departmental employees, will also likely be deferred. 

Applying the entire $100,000 to Proposition O purposes will assure development of procedures 
to implement the new law; however such application will seriously jeopardize the ability of the 
Commission to handle its complaint load. It is not clear either that such application will enable 
existing staff to carry out investigations or pursue the Commission's other mandates any more 
expeditiously. 



SNBudgetvOI-M Budget^ 1 00,000 nllocutiun.Joc 



20 

OCT-17-2001 22:08 P. 03 



PUG-27-1900 22=15 



Timeline for Implementation of Proposition O 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 



Attachment I 
Page 5 oE 5 



November 2001 - March 2002 
November 2001 - April 2002 
November 2001 - April 2002 

November 2001 - March 2002 
January 2002 - April 2002 

April 2002 

April -May 2002 
June 2002 

August 2002 



develop public financing audit manual 

draft public financing manual for candidates 

draft application and related forms for public 

financing program 

develop workshop presentations for candidates 

recruit, hire, and train Proposition Administrator 

and Public Financing Auditor 

conduct training workshops for candidates and 

treasurers 

train auditors from Controller's Office 

review applications for public financing from 

candidates 

begin awarding public financing grants to 

candidates 



S:\Budget\0I-02 Bu<Jget\5100,000 allocation limelinc.doc 



21 



fiUG-27-1303 22=16 



Attachment II 



o 

(0 

CD 
i 

"O 
"O 

< 

o 

o 
cd 

o" 
o 

T— 



e 

O TJ 

E K 
o -a 
o a 









Oi 






g 


CD 


<N 




ro 




O 

O 








O 


cc 




CD 


co 


C- 




CN 










^T 


O 




D» 


co" 


0) 




b~ 




CO 






TO 


CN 








s 


co 








0" 






Q 


if> 


» 




t/> 


</» 




V* 


























O 


























T~ 


























<jO 








CO 


N- 




,- 


03 




















CN 




CO 


CO 
















|/) 


CN 


V" 




CO 


CD 
















* 


cn 




ro" 


i~~." 


















foO- 


(=9- 




kf> 


«> 
















c 


























0) 


























cc 
























t; 




CO 


r~~ 




uo 


r~- 














£> 


r^ 


o 




CN 


r» 














_cd 


CO 


LO 




Is. 


CD 














M 

3 


a 


co" 


g£ 




L0~ 


d 

CO 














S" 


CO 


fe«> 






t/> 


tfl- 














< 






























CM 


,- 




■r- 


p- 


















CT> 


CN 




oo 


CD 
















HI 


d 


d 




c 


d 
















h- 


























LL 




























CO 


co 




CD 


CD 
















& 


CN 


o 




CN 


CO 














ra 
3 
C 


r-_ 


LO 




r^ 


r»- 














ra 


CN 


o" 




o" 


ID 














c 


CD 


in 


c 




LO 


"<r 














< 


CO 


& 


tf» 




</> 


tn 














>- 




CO 


CO 




,— 


,_ 














fr 


CN 


uo 




LO 


CO 














O 


O 


in 




CO 


r-_ 














SB 


CN 


■r-~ 




T— " 


^" 














3 


TO 

CO 


t» 


to<> 




feO 


U~r 














CD 




























a. 
















10 










tu 
















G) 










co 


n 


CN 




co 


■*f 


















CL 


CL 




a. 


a. 






Q. 

£X 
3 










IB 


05 


CD 




CO 


CD 






































o 


55 

CN 

s 


CO 
CD 

CM 




CO 

CN 
LO 
LO 


CO 

o" 

CM 

CO 






CO 

TJ 
C 
TO 
10 
TO 












O 
























I 




a) 
CJ 
c 






3 




CJ 












tn 




to 
c 
u_ 











ra 










_CD 


'c 

E 

"a 
< 


it 


"5 






£ 






l/» 




P 


o 

d 


e 

CT 


< 


d* 

c 


to 

10 




c 
a) 
E 

a 
'3 

LO- 






1 






O 

a. 
o 


o 

O 


'ra 
ex 
E 

TO 


~3 
0) 

cr 

E 


j2 V> 

CO CD 
to C 


• 

re 
ra 








CO 






a. 


£ 


CJ 


£ 


< < 


c/j 




LL! 







en o 

.<£ a 

x: o 

*-■ l- 

LU CL 



o 

h- 

■a 

c 
rz 

i- 

O 



J3 O 



O* Q. 



CO - ?■ 






2 6 



CD 
CJ 
Pi 

CO 

P! 

•H 

!-i 
O 

CD 
co 
O 
P< 
O 
U 

a. 

CD 
4-1 

m 

o 

4-> 
o 

CD 
•1—) 

■3 



cu 



nr.T- 17-2001 22:0S 



22 



TOT PL P. 05 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-1743 

Note: This report is based on an Amendment of the Whole, which will be 

introduced at the October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting by the 

Office of the Sponsor. 



Department: Department of Human Resources 

Item: Ordinance amending the 2001-2002 Annual Salary 

Ordinance to entitle City officers or employees called to 
active duty with a military reserve organization in response 
to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to receive from 
the City the difference between the amount of the 
individual's military pay and the amount the individual 
would have received as a City officer or employee had the 
individual worked his or her normal work schedule. 

Description: According to Mr. Philip Ginsburg of the City Attorney's 

Office, in accordance with the City Charter and in addition to 
benefits provided under the California Military and Veterans 
Code 1 and the City's Civil Service Rules, the proposed 
ordinance amending the FY 2001-2002 Annual Salary 
Ordinance would: 

• Provide supplementation of gross military pay for any 
City officer or employee who is a member of the reserve 
corps of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard 
or other uniformed service organization of the United 
States and is called into active military service in 
response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in 
New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania or 
related extraordinary circumstances. 

• Provide such supplementation of gross military pay for a 
period not to exceed the duration of this proposed 
ordinance which shall be for 180 calendar days. 



1 Charter Section A8.400 (h) enables the Mayor to introduce to the Board of Supervisors for its 
approval an ordinance which entitles City officers and employees, who are called to active duty with 
a U.S. military reserve organization, to receive supplementation of his or her military pay for a 
period not to exceed 180 calendar days, according to Mr. Ginsburg. Subject to varying eligibility 
criteria, Sections 395.01 and 395.02 of the California Military and Veterans Code and Civil Service 
Rule 120.25.7 state that public employees on military leave are entitled to receive his or her salary or 
compensation as a public employee for the first 30 calendar days of any such absence. In accordance 
with the City's Charter, this ordinance would trigger on the 31" day of active service and after the 
effective date of the ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

• Establish eligibility guidelines and limitations for 
supplementation of gross military pay. 

• Call for an agreement to be executed between the City 
and a given reservist which would consider such 
supplementation of gross military pay a loan if a given 
reservist does not return to work for the City within 60 
days of release from the employee's active duty or if that 
individual is not fit for employment at the time he or she 
is released from active duty, within 60 days of a 
determination that he or she is deemed fit to return to 
City employment. The loan would be payable to the City 
with interest in equal monthly installments not to exceed 
five years, commencing 90 days after an individual's 
release from duty or return to fitness for City 
employment. 

All conditions and limitations summarized above and 
explained further below are required by Charter Section 
A8.400 (h) except that under this proposed ordinance, the 
purpose of the call to active duty must be in response to the 
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 

Comments: Conditions and Limitations of the Proposed 

Ordinance 

1. To be eligible for supplementation of gross military pay, 
the employee must meet the following conditions: (1) the 
employee must be called to active service for a period of more 
than 30 consecutive days; and (2) the purpose of the call to 
active duty must be in response to the September 11, 2001 
terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and 
Pennsylvania or related extraordinary circumstances. 

2. Under the proposed ordinance, any individual receiving 
the proposed supplementation of gross military pay would be 
required to execute an agreement with the City that 
stipulates that if he or she does not return to work with the 
City within 60 days of being released from duty or duty or if 
that individual is not fit for employment at the time he or 
she is released from active duty, within 60 days of a 
determination that he or she is deemed fit for City 
employment, that such supplemental pay would be 
considered a loan, payable with interest to the City. The 
interest rate on the loan would be at a rate equal to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



greater of (i) the rate of interest received for the concurrent 
period by the Treasurer's Cash Account 2 ; or (ii) the minimum 
amount necessary to avoid imputed income under the 
Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986, as amended from 
time to time or any successor statute. Ms. Pamela Levin from 
the Controller's Office advises that any monies from the 
repayment of such loans would return to the fund from which 
it was originally paid. For example, if the supplemental pay 
came from the General Fund, the monies from the loan 
would be returned to the General Fund, according to Ms. 
Levin. As noted above, the loan would be payable to the City 
in equal monthly installments over a period not to exceed 
five years, beginning 90 days after an individual is released 
from duty or duty or if that individual is not fit for 
employment at the time he or she is released from active 
duty, within 90 days of a determination that he or she is 
deemed fit to return to City employment. 

3. The proposed ordinance would provide such 
supplementation of gross military pay for a period not to 
exceed 180 days or six months, from the effective date of the 
proposed ordinance. During the 180 day period, the amount 
of gross supplemental salary paid to individual employees 
called into active service would be offset by gross military 
pay received in order that there be no double payment of 
gross salary to a City officer or employee. 

Compensation under the proposed ordinance 

4. For the period not to exceed 180 calendar days from the 
effective date of the proposed ordinance, an individual active 
reservist would receive: (a) the difference in pay between the 
individual's gross military pay and the individual's gross pay 
as a City Officer or employee had the individual worked his 
or her normal schedule; (b) all benefits to which the 
individual would have been entitled to had he or she not been 
called to active duty except as limited by State law or the 
City's Charter. Such benefits would include, for example, 
sick leave, vacation time, annual step increases and general 
wage increases, health benefits, retirement service credit and 



2 According to Mr. Tom Carrick of the Treasurer and Tax Collector's Office, the Treasurer's Pooled 
Cash Account consists of non-dedicated investment funds, which will be spent within approximately 
six months of such investment. Mr. Carrick advises that interest earned on the Treasurer's Pooled 
Cash Account for September of 2001 is 5.133 percent. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

employer-paid mandatory employee retirement 

contributions. Under the City Charter and State law, 
employees would not be eligible for service-related death 
benefits, service-related disability retirements or workers 
compensation benefits while on paid military leave. 

Costs 

5. The Attachment, provided by the Controller's Office, states 
that the proposed ordinance is expected to impact 
approximately 25 individuals. The Controller reports that 
the proposed ordinance would result "in minor costs to the 
City" since the affected individuals are already on the City's 
payroll. Additionally, the Controller states in the 
Attachment that there may be a cost to backfill some 
positions on overtime, but that this cost would be offset by 
the savings from not paying the full salary of the reservists. 
According to the Controller, to the extent that the positions 
are not backfilled, there may be a loss in productivity that 
cannot be estimated at this time. 

6. Mr. Ginsburg states that the need to backfill a position 
would be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on 
whether or not the reservist's Department has minimum 
staffing requirements, such as minimum staffing 
requirements for the Fire Department. 

7. According to Mr. Ginsburg, it is not certain how many City 
employees and officers are reservists or which City 
employees and officers would be called into active duty. Also, 
it is unclear what the military pay would be for the reservists 
who are called into active duty. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

26 







CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment 
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER 



Edward Harrington 
Controller 



Matthew H. Hymel 
Chief Assistant Controller 

October 15, 2001 

Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 

Board of Supervisors 

Ciry Hall, Room 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

R£: File Number 011743 

Ordinance Amending the 2001-2002 Annual Salary Ordinance to Entitle City Officers or Employees 
Called to Active Duty with a Military Reserve Organization to Receive From the City the Difference 
Between the Amount of the Individual's Military Pay and the Amount the Individual Would Have 
Received .is a City Officer or Employee Had the Individual Worked His or Her Normal Work Schedule 

Dear Ms. Young: 

In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of an ordinance amending the 2001-2002 
Annual Salary Ordinance to provide for compensation for employees called to active military duty in response to 
the September 11*, 2001 terrorist attacks. 

The amendment is effective upon approval for a period of 180 calendar days. It provides for compensation for the 
difference between the military pay and the regular salary for any city officer or employee who is a member of the 
reserve corps of the United State Armed Forces, National Guard or other uniformed service organization of the 
United States who is called into active military service in response to the September 1 1* terrorist attacks. According 
to the Human Resources Department, the amendment is expected to impact approximately 25 individuals. 

Based on our analysis, the amendment will result in minor costs to the City since the affected individuals are already 
on the payroll. There may be a cost to backfill the reservists on overtime; however, this cost is expected to be offset 
by the savings from not paying the full salary of the reservists. In addition, to the extent the positions are not 
backfilled, there may be a loss in productivity that can not be estimated at this time. 

If you have additional questions or concerns please contact me at 554-7500 or Pamela Levin of my staff at 554- 
7554. 




Alice Villagomez, ERD 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



•SS4-7SO0 

nrT-i--onni ni:n7 



City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. GoodleH Pbcc • Room 316 ■ Sin Francisco CA 94102-4694 

27 



FAX41S-SS4-7«6< 



j..'1~ C=A 1ACC. 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 -File 01-1709 
Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Civil Service Commission 
Department of Human Resources 

Resolution fixing the highest general prevailing rate of 
wages, including wages for overtime and holiday work for 
various crafts and kinds of labor as paid for similar work 
in private employment in the City and County of San 
Francisco at the rates certified by the Civil Service 
Commission on September 17, 2001 (Civil Service 
Commission File No. 0693-01-3) and establish these rates 
as the wages which private employers are required to pay 
various workers performing labor under City constracts. 

Charter Section 7.204 requires that City contracts for 
public works or improvements involving construction or 
fabrication provide for the payment of the highest 
prevailing wage rates 1 to all persons performing labor 
under such contracts. Section 6.22 of the City's 
Administrative Code requires that the Board of 
Supervisors at least once during each calendar year, fix 
and determine these highest general prevailing rate of 
wages paid in private employment in accordance with the 
Charter Section 7.204, including rates of wages for 
overtime and holiday work. The proposed resolution 
would establish these highest prevailing rates of wages 
which private employers are required to pay various 
workers performing labor under such City contracts. 

In accordance with Section 6.22 of the City's 
Administrative Code, to assist the Board of Supervisors in 
determining these wage rates, the Civil Service 
Commission is required to furnish to the Board of 
Supervisors, on or before the first Monday of November of 
each year, data as to the highest general prevailing rates 
of wages as paid by private employers in various craft and 
other workers in San Francisco. Section 6.22 states that 
the Board of Supervisors is not limited to the data 
submitted b} 7, the Civil Service Commission in 
determining the prevailing wage rates, but may consider 



1 Prevailing rate of wage is the rate of compensation being paid to a majority of workers 
engaged in specified category of craft or labor. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

other information on the subject as the Board deems 
proper. 

In March of 1989, the Board of Supervisors amended the 
City's Administrative Code to include the operation of off- 
street-parking lots or garages under the term "public 
work or improvements" as defined by Section 6.33 in 
order to provide prevailing wages to private Garage 
Attendants in City-owned garages. In addition in May of 
1999, the Board of Supervisors further amended the 
City's Administrative Code to require that persons 
performing janitorial services under contract to the City 
be paid not less than the general prevailing wages in 
private employment doing similar work. 



The Civil Service Commission has provided the Board of 
Supervisors with the following data for determining the 
highest general prevailing rate of wages: (a) the General 
Prevailing Wage Determination Survey conducted by the 
Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California 
for all craft workers, except Garage Attendants and 
Janitorial Service Workers (b) the existing agreement, in 
effect through November 30, 2003, between Parking 
Employers and Teamsters Automotive Employees, Local 
665 for Garage Attendants and (c) the existing agreement 
effective August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003, between 
San Francisco Maintenance contractors Association and 
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), 
Building Service Employees Local 87 for Janitors and 
Custodians. 

Comments: 1. A copy of the data submitted to the Board of 

Supervisors by the Civil Service Commission on 
September 24, 2001, as to the highest general prevailing 
rate of wages paid by private employers to various craft 
workers in San Francisco is on file with the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors. According to the current three-year 
agreement between Teamster Automotive and Allied 
Workers Local 665 and various private employers for the 
period from December 1, 2000 through November 30, 
2003, the highest hourly rate for Garage Attendants was 
$15.50 as of December 1, 2000. According to the tentative 
three-year agreement for the period August 1, 1999 
through August 1, 2002, the highest hourly rate for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Janitors and custodians is $14.85 per hour as of August 1, 
2000. 

2. As discussed above, the Civil Service Commission is 
required to furnish data to the Board of Supervisors as to 
the highest general prevailing rate of wages as paid by 
private employers to various craft and other workers in 
San Francisco, as identified in the Attachment. This data 
is to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on or before 
the first Monday in November of each year, or by 
November 1, 2001 of this past year. 

3. In response to the Budget Analyst's request for fiscal 
impact data of the proposed legislation, Ms. Villagomez 
the Department of Human Resources has not conducted a 
specific fiscal analysis of fixing the highest general 
prevailing rate of wages for craft workers, Garage 
Attendants and Janitors. 

4. Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's Office reports that 
the Controller's Office cannot estimate the fiscal impact of 
the proposed resolution because their Office would need to 
do further research and analysis of contracts to determine 
such impacts. 

Recommendation: Given that the Department of Human Resources and the 

Controller's Office are not able to provide the fiscal impact 
of the proposed legislation, approval of the proposed 
resolution is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Attachment 
Workers Covered by the Prevailing Wage Legislation 



Asbestos Removal Worker (Laborer) 

Asbestos Worker, Heat and Frost Insulator 

Boilermaker-Blacksmith 

Brick Tender 

Bricklayer, Blocklayer 

Carpenter 

Carpet, Linoleum 

Cement Mason 

Dredger (Operating Engineer) 

Drywall Installer (Carpenter) 

Electrical Utility Lineman 

Electrician 

Elevator Constructor 

Field Surveyor 

Glazier 

Iron Worker 

Janitors 

Laborer 

Landscape Maintenance Laborer 

Light Fixture Maintenance 

Marble Finisher 

Marble Setter 

Operating Engineer 

Operating Engineer (Building Construction) 

Operating Engineer (Heavy and Highway Work) 

Operating Engineer (Landscape Construction) 

Painter 

Parking and Highway Improvement Painter (Painter) 

Parking Garage Attendants 

Pile Driver (Carpenter) 

Pile Driver (Operating Engineer - Building Construction) 

Pile Driver (Operating Engineer - Heavy and Highway Work) 

Plaster Tender 

Plasterer 

Plumber 

Roofer 

Sheet Metal Worker (HVAC) 

Slurry Seal Worker 

Stator Rewinder 

Steel Erector and Fabtricator (Operating Engineer- Heavy & Highway Work) 

Steel, Tank and Machinery Erection (Operating Engineer- Building Consturction) 

Steel, Tank and Machinery Erection (Operating Engineer - Heavy and Highway Work) 

Teamster 

Telecommunications Technician 

Telephone Installation Worker 

Terrazzo Worker 

Tile Finisher 

Tile Setter 

Traffic Control/Lane Closure (Laborer) 

Tree Trimmer (line clearance) 

Tunnel Worker (Laborer) 

Tunnel/Underground (Operating Engineer) 

Water Well Driller 



Attachment.10-16-01.xls _, 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 01-1775 



Department: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 



Item: 



Resolution approving contract amendments to water 
supply contracts between the PUC and the Cities of East 
Palo Alto and Menlo Park. 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would approve amendments to 
an existing contract to supply water to the Cities of East 
Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The PUC entered into 25-year 
wholesale water sale agreements with the East Palo Alto 
County Waterworks District on August 8, 1984 and with 
the City of Menlo Park on May 15, 1984. On May 6, 2001 
the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation 
Commission adopted Resolution 64287 approving the 
dissolution of the East Palo Alto County Waterworks 
District. The City of East Palo Alto has assumed the 
rights and obligations of the East Palo Alto Waterworks 
District under the August 8, 1984 contract with the PUC. 
The City of East Palo Alto now requests that the PUC 
formally transfer the water sale assignment through the 
subject contract amendment. 

In addition, the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park 
wish to alter their respective water service area 
boundaries. The boundary adjustment would transfer a 
portion of control of the former East Palo Alto 
Waterworks District service area lying within the 
corporate limits of Menlo Park to the City of Menlo Park. 
According to the PUC, this would not affect the amount of 
water that it is contracted to deliver under the Master 
Water Sales Contract with the Cities of East Palo Alto 
and Menlo Park. The Attachment to this report is a 
memorandum from Mr. William Laws of the PUC that 
summarizes the proposed contract amendments. 



Comment: 



As noted in the attached memorandum, the contract 
amendments, if approved will not affect the quantity of 
water to be delivered or the revenue the PUC will receive 
from the sale of water to the two Cities. In FY 2001-2002, 
the PUC will receive a total of $284,412,680 in revenues 
from all sources. Included in this amount is $79,467,613 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

from the sale of water on a wholesale basis to the 
suburban cities customer class. According to Mr. Laws, 
the PUC does not estimate the anticipated revenue 
generated by the sale of water to the individual customers 
within a customer class and therefore cannot provide a 
revenue estimate from the Cities of East Palo Alto and 
Menlo Park. Mr. Laws notes that in FY 2000-2001 the 
PUC received $940,634 in revenue from the City of East 
Palo Alto and $1,514,377 in revenue from the City of 
Menlo Park, for a total revenue of $2,455,011 for the sale 
of water to the two districts. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



til_l_eUJl.iLlfcH.l_ 



fPO, 




San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission 

Bureau of Finance 

1155 Market St., 5* Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103 



MEMORANDUM 




DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2001 

TO: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

CC: Patricia 5. Martel, Genera-- Manager, SFPUC 

KlNGSLEY C. OXEREXE, DIRECTOR OP FINANCE, SFPUC 

FROM: William K. Laws, Rate ADMINISTRATOR, SFPUC 

SUBJECT: EAST PALO ALTO AND MENLO PARK AMENDMENTS 



The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission through its Water Enterprise provides water 
service to the East Palo Alto County Water District ("District") under the terms of the 1984 
Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Ton tract") as well as an Individual 
water supply contract specifying the area to be served, the quantity of water to be supplied, 
and the delivery points. 

The District together with the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park petitioned the San 
Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCo") to dissolve the District and apportion 
its assets and water service responsibilities between the two cities. LAFCo approved the 
petition. 

Section 7.06 of the Contract allows for the succession and assignment of benefits from one 
suburban resale customer to another provided the area to be served Is not enlarged. 
Section 7.07(d) of the Contract allows two or more suburban resale customers to adjust the 
boundaries of their respective service areas and to correspondingly adjust their shares of the 
supply assurance. Adjustments of service areas and shares of the supply assurance made 
pursuant Section 7.07(d) require only the consent of the City (through the Public Utilities 
Commission) and the suburban resale customers involved. The Public Utilities Commission 
by adoption of Resolution No. 00-0152 recognized the City of East Palo as the successor to 
the District and gave its consent to assignment of the District's share of the supply 
assurance to Menlo Park and to East Palo and to the revision of the respective service 
territories of the two cities. The Commission also authorized the General Manager of 
Utilities to execute amendments to the individual water supply contracts reflecting the 
aforementioned changes. 

i he amendments now submitted for consideration by the 5oard of Supervisors will not affect 
the quantity of water the Water Enterprise is obligated to deliver under the Master Water 
Sales Contract, the size of the territory to be served, or the revenues the Water Enterprise 
expects to aerive from the sale of water. 



34 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 8 - File 01-1733 



Department: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Real Estate Division 



Item: 



Resolution authorizing the relocation of the Crystal 
Springs Pipeline Numbers 1 and 2 within the City of 
South San Francisco along Bayshore Boulevard in 
accordance with a Water Supply Lines Relocation 
Agreement and the subsequent transfer of easements. 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would authorize the relocation of 
Crystal Springs Pipeline 1 and 2 within the City of South 
San Francisco and approve an easement exchange 
agreement between the PUC and the City of South San 
Francisco. In order to accommodate the construction of a 
U.S. Highway 101 ramp in South San Francisco, the PUC 
proposes to relocate two water pipelines along Bayshore 
Boulevard in South San Francisco. The Crystal Springs 
Pipelines (CSPL) 1 and 2 would be placed in a new 2,400- 
foot long and 40-foot wide easement along Bayshore 
Boulevard. According to Mr. Anastasio Mavroudis of the 
PUC, the existing pipelines are 115-years old. Pursuant 
to a water supply line agreement between the PUC and 
South San Francisco, the PUC will pay construction and 
"other costs" for the replacement costs of CSPL 1 and the 
City of South San Francisco will pay for the construction 
and other costs for the replacement of CSPL 2. The PUC 
estimates that the construction costs for the relocation of 
CSPL 1 is $2,750,000. In addition the PUC estimates 
$450,000 in "other costs" for a total project costs of 
$3,200,000 (see Comment 1). According to the PUC, 
construction project costs and other costs associated with 
the replacement of CSPL 1 are subject to review and 
approval of bid prices. 

According to Mr. Mavroudis, the easement exchange was 
requested by the City of South San Francisco to 
accommodate the construction of a ramp to US Highway 
101. Attachment I to this report is a map of the proposed 
easement exchange between the PUC and the City of 
South San Francisco. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



1. As previously noted, the construction cost of relocating 
CSLP 1 is $3,200,000. Mr. Mavroudis, adds that the 
construction of costs to the City of South San Francisco to 
relocate CSPL 2 would be $2,634,000. Attachment II is a 
memorandum from the PUC which explains why 
construction costs to replace CSPL 1 and 2 were divided 
between the PUC and South San Francisco. 



Recommendation: 



2. Mr. Mavroudis states that the proposed Easement 
Exchange Agreement does not diminish the PUC's 
capacity for installing future water or other utility 
pipelines. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Attachment I 




1 of 2 



2 ot 2 



S _33J25_'46"_E_ JJQ 



\ -G£ND 

M MAPS 

P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING 

(R) RADIAL 

T.P.O.3. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNNING 





4/j 


LOT 395 


121 M 65-79 


,v A 

#/ An? / 

«£/ / e y 




WATER UNE EASEMENT 

TO BE ABANDONDED 

21.774 SQUARE FEET 

T.P.O.B." 




<*- 



A 



^ 



<^ 



O 



V 



<b 



O 



<o 



LINE AND CURVE TABLE 




NO. I BEARING 


DISTANCE 




L1 | N 57-OS'45" E 


35.17" 




L2 


S 39'05'09" W 


57.14' 




L3 


S 39'05'12" W 


20.07' 




L4 | S 43'41'09" W 


33.39' 




L5 | S 4r04'55" W 


49.53' 




L6 | S 42'07'49" W 


32.44' 




L7 | S 42*28'12" W I 53.20' 




L8 | S 44-2T59" W j 5.95' 




L9 | N 47"43'05" W 20.01' 




L10 I N 44"22'35" E | 6.25' 




L11 | N 43-08'02" E | 72.13' 




L12 | N 42-28'13" E | 83.73' 




L13 | N 4T06"24" E | 50.45' 




LK | N 43 - 48'07" E | 31.76' 




L15 | N 39 - 05'l2" E | 20.07' j 


L16 | N 39'05'15" E | 57.41' 


j L17 | N 26 - 45'51" E | 49.56' | 



NO. 1 RADIUS I DELTA | LENGTH 
C1 I 470.79' I 00-32'31" | 4.45' 



Subject WATER LINE EASEMENT 



Brian Kangas Faulk 



540 Pries Avenue 
Redwood City. CA 94063 
650/432-5300 
650/452-6399 (FAX) 



ABANDONMENT 



EXHIBIT "B 



Job No. 
3 y CCC 



960241-17 



. Dote 
SHEET 



12/04/QO Chkd. 
1 OF 1 



BA3 



38 




<&&? 

"*«&&■ 



Water 

Hetch Hetchy 

water & power 

Clean Water 



Willie L. Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 

Ann moller Caen 

President 

e. dennis normanqt 

1/;ce President 

Fr*Nx L. Cook 

ASHOK K. BHATT 

Patricja E. Martel 
General manager 




Attac-OTQenJ: , II 

an Francisco public Utilities Commission 

Utilities Engineering Bureau 

1 1 55 Market Street. 7™ Floor * San Francisco California -» 34 i 03 

415. 5S4.0716 » FAX 4 15.554. 1877 

Michael E. Quan, Manager 



October 18, 2001 

TO: Pascal St. Gerard 

Budget Analyst 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

FROM: Tasso Mavroudis, P.E. 

Project Manager 
Utilities Engineering Bureau 
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

SUBJECT: CUW1 12.01 Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 1 Replacement in 
Brisbane: 

Explanation of why is the City of South San Francisco not 
paying the cost of relocating both Crystal Sprinsg Pipelines 
(1&2) as part of their Bayshore Boulevard/Route 101 Hook 
Ramps project. 

The following is an explanation pursuant to the subject request. 

The City of South San Francisco (SSF) has developed plans to construct a Hook 
Ramp and Flyover on/off ramp from Highway 101 onto Bayshore Boulevard in 
South San Francisco. Construction of this project requires the relocation of 
approximately 2400 feet of both Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 1 and No. 2 (CSPL 
No. 1 & 2) currently located within Bayshore Boulevard. The City and County of 
San Francisco (CCSF) owns an easement for alignment of CSPL No. 2 within the 
construction area, however CCSF does not own an easement for the alignment of 
CSPL No. 1. The Hook Ramps project will relocate both CSPL No. 1 and No. 2 
into a joint easement thereby assuring permanent rights for CSPL No.1 in addition 
to CSPL No. 2. 

The existing 44-inch diameter CSPL No.1 was built in 1885 to carry water from 
the Crystal Springs Reservoir to San Francisco. Age and corrosion have 
deteriorated CSPL No. 1 to a point where the structural integrity of the pipeline is 
no longer capable of withstanding the operating pressures of the system. CSPL 
No. 1 has been out of service for over ten years. Because CCSF does not own 
an easement for CSPL No. 1 and due to its condition, transfer of the costs for 
replacement to SSF was considered unjustified. 

Please fell free to call me if you have any questions. 



S.F.: (415)554-1809 

Millbrae: (550) 871-2037 



Cc 



E. West 



C. Nelson 



39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 01-1737 



Department: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Real Estate Division 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution authorizing the execution and performance of 
an easement exchange agreement with the City of 
Brisbane relating to the replacement of the Crystal 
Springs Pipeline Number 1. 

The proposed resolution would approve an easement 
exchange agreement between the PUC and the City of 
Brisbane. The PUC would transfer all of its interest in 
the Crystal Springs Pipeline easement located beneath 
Tunnel Avenue (the Tunnel Avenue Pipeline Easement) 
within the City of Brisbane. In return the PUC would 
obtain a new pipeline easement from the City of Brisbane 
beneath the Brisbane Community Park (Park Easement) 
which the PUC would use for the construction of Crystal 
Springs Pipeline Number 1 (CSPL 1). The CSPL 1 is a 
new pipeline. The Crystal Springs Pipeline currently 
located beneath Tunnel Avenue is a 12-inch diameter 
main water pipe and is approximately 1,250 feet in 
length. According to the proposed easement exchange 
agreement, the City of Brisbane agrees to accept the 
pipeline "as is, with all known faults". According to Larry 
Jacobson of the Real Estate Division, the Park Easement 
to be transferred by the City of Brisbane to the City of 
San Francisco and the Tunnel Avenue Pipeline Easement 
to be transferred from the City of San Francisco to the 
City of Brisbane are equal in value. The Real Estate 
Division has appraised both the 50-foot long Park 
Easement and the 1,250-foot long Tunnel Avenue Pipeline 
Easement to be worth $23,000. 

By obtaining the new Park Easement, the PUC will not 
have to lay an additional 257 feet of pipe through 
residential and commercial districts. According to the 
PUC, constructing CSPL 1 beneath the proposed Park 
Easement would result in a net savings to the PUC of 
$86,500. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to Mr. Anastasio Mavroudis, of the PUC, the 
City of Brisbane wishes to avoid the disruption which 
would occur if the new CSPL 1 is constructed in the 
current easement area. Mr. Chris Nelson of the PUC 
states that the construction of CSPL 1 in the Park 
Easement is in fact nearly completed. Attachment I from 
the PUC explains the PUC's reason for commencing work 
on CSPL 1 prior to obtaining Board of Supervisor 
approval of the proposed resolution. According to Mr. 
Nelson, the City of Brisbane allowed the PUC to begin the 
project under an encroachment agreement, but a formal 
easement will be needed for the long term to facilitate 
access to the pipeline for maintenance purposes. 
Attachment II to this report is a map of the proposed 
easements to be exchanged between the City of Brisbane 
and the PUC. 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



1. According Mr. Nelson, one of the provisions of the 
encroachment agreement between the PUC and the City 
of Brisbane is that the PUC will set aside $81,500 for the 
restoration of Brisbane's landscaping, lighting and 
walkways in the Park Easement following pipeline 
installation. Mr. Nelson also states that the proposed 
resolution authorizing the easement exchange agreement 
between the PUC and the City of Brisbane would result in 
no exchange of funds between the PUC and the City of 
Brisbane. Mr. Nelson states further that because of the 
encroachment agreement between the PUC and the City 
of Brisbane the total net savings to the PUC would be 
$86,500 ($168,000 minus $81,500). 

2. Mr. Nelson also notes that the proposed Exchange 
Agreement does not diminish the PUC's capacity for 
installing future water or other utility pipelines using the 
Park Easement. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 24, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 




7^ Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 




Water 

hetch Hetchy 

water & power 

clean water 



Willie L. Brown, jr. 
Mayor 

Ann Moller Caen 

President 

E. Dennis Normandy 

vice President 

Frank L. Cook 

Ashok K. Bhatt 

Patricia E. martel 
Genera l Ma na cer 



IAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

UTILITIES ENGINEERING BUREAU 

1 1 55 MARKET STREET, 7™ FLOOR « SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA « 94 1 03 

415. 554.0716 c FAX 41 5.554. 1 877 

Michael E. Quan, Manager 



October 18, 2001 




TO: 



FROM: 



Pascal St. Gerard 

Budget Analyst 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 



P.E. (2$) 



Tasso Mavroudis, 

Project Manager 

Utilities Engineering Bureau 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 



SUBJECT: CUW1 12.01 Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 1 
Replacement in Brisbane: 

Request for explanation for initiation of the project prior 
to Board of Supervisor Approval 

The following is an explanation pursuant to the subject request. 

The City and County of San Francisco proceeded with construction of the 
replacement of Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 1 in the City of Brisbane in 
order to meet the asset capitalization date for the pipeline facility. Before 
construction began, it was estimated that the project construction schedule 
allowed for the negotiation and approval process to have been achieved 
prior to construction for installation of the pipeline through the easement 
area in downtown Brisbane. 



Please fell free to call me if you have any questions. 

S.F.: (415)554-1809 

Millbrae: (650)871-2037 



Cc 



E. West C. Nelson 



43 



0CT-1P-5OO1 C1^:~~ 



Ji=. =!-..i 1 -~~ 



39;: 






Attachment 11 
Page 1 of 2 



Tunnel Avenue 
Easement 




Atcacnment II 
fage 2 or 2 




5FTo^5 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: GailJohnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, October 31, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m. 

011885 [Reserved Funds, Board of Supervisors - Office of Legislative Analyst] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Board of Supervisors - Office of Legislative Analyst (Fiscal 
Year 2001-02 Budget), in the total amount of $181,628 ($147,207 in salaries plus $34,421 in fringes). (Clerk 
of the Board) 

10/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board, Clarice 
Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $181,628 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011889 [Office of the Legislative Analyst Staff Vacancy] 

Motion to authorize the Clerk of the Board to fill a vacancy in the Office of the Legislative Analyst for the 
position of Senior Legislative Analyst. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Supervisor Peskin dissenting in Committee) 

10/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Har\>ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gloria Young. Clerk of the Board; Clarice 

Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Gonzalez 

Noes: 1 - Peskin 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at .1:01 PM 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 31, 2001 



011827 [Lease with Japan Airlines Company, Ltd.] 

Resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a Lease with Japan Airlines 
Company, Ltd., for space in Plot 50B-1 Cargo Building. (Airport Commission) 
10/9/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 
Amended on line 3, after "authorizing, " and on line 18, after "approves, " by adding "retroactive to October 
26,2001." 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving and authorizing, retroactive to October 26, 2001, the execution of a Lease with Japan 
Airlines Company, Ltd., for space in Plot 50B-1 Cargo Building. (Airport Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011881 [Contract between the Department of Public Health and Health Advocates, LLP to provide 
uncompensated care recovery services] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Health and the Purchaser to execute a contract between the City 

and County of San Francisco and Health Advocates, LLP to provide uncompensated care reimbursement 

recovery services. (Public Health Department) 

10/16/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be considered at the October 24, 2001 

meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Department of Public Health. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011830 [Reserved Funds, Public Library] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Public Library (File 010551, Ordinance No. 76-01), in the 
amount of $230,000 for the Radio Repeater Project and $20,000 for the Audio/Visual Design Project as 
recommended by the January 2000 Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Report on the Public Library. (Public 
Library) 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee) 

10/5/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; George Nichols, Finance Director, Public 

Library; Edward Harrington, Controller. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $250,000 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:01 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 31, 2001 



011738 [Easement Exchange - Niles Reservoir in the City of Fremont] 

Resolution authorizing the exchange of easements in the Niles District of the City of Fremont thereby allowing 
public street access to San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Niles Reservoir Properly, Alameda County 
Water District Property and George Emmett Revocable Trust Property, and authorizing the execution of a 
quitclaim deed vacating a portion of the interest of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in an 
existing tunnel easement encumbering adjacent properties. (Real Estate Department) 
10/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services; Theodore Lakey, Budget Analyst, 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011828 [Public Utilities Commission State Loan] 

Resolution amending Resolution 720-99, which authorized the Public Utilities Commission to apply for and 
enter into loan agreements not to exceed $50 million for the reimbursement of prior expenditures incurred for 
the construction of the Islais Creek/Rankin Street Transport Storage Facilities and to apply such reimbursed 
monies to defease certain bonds of the Clean Water Enterprise, to also authorize the application of a portion of 
such reimbursed monies to fund certain capital projects of the Clean Water Enterprise. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

10/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; 
Kingsley Okereke, Public Utilities Commission, Finance Bureau. 

Amended on page 1, line 9, after "Enterprise, " by adding "placing $3.5 million on reserve. " 
AMENDED. 

Resolution amending Resolution 720-99, which authorized the Public Utilities Commission to apply for and 
enter into loan agreements not to exceed $50 million for the reimbursement of prior expenditures incurred for 
the construction of the Islais Creek/Rankin Street Transport Storage Facilities and to apply such reimbursed 
monies to defease certain bonds of the Clean Water Enterprise, to also authorize the application of a portion of 
such reimbursed monies to fund certain capital projects of the Clean Water Enterprise; placing $3.5 million on 
reserve. (Public Utilities Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 3:02 r\l on 3 3 1)4 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 31, 2001 



011563 [SF Public Utilities Commission Program Management Services Contract with the San Francisco Water 
Alliance] 

Resolution approving the second year renewal (FY 2001-2002) of the Public Utilities Commission Program 
Management Services Contract with the San Francisco Water Alliance. (Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/29/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public 

Utilities Commission; David Novogrodsky, Local 21; Supervisor Daly; Art Jensen, General Manager, Bay 

Aea Water Users Association; Jim Chappel, President, SPUR; Lee Glitch, President, Chamber of Commerce; 

Stan Warren, San Francisco Building Trades Council; Thomas M. Berliner; Alan Gibson, Budget Analyst's 

Office; John Cloosner, Program Manager, San Francisco Water Alliance; Mike Quan, Manager, Utilities 

Engineering Bureau, Public Utilities Commission; Jeet Bajwa, Utilities Engineering Bureau, Public Utilities 

Commission; Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office, Edward Harrington, Controller, Theodore Lakey, Deputy 

City Attorney. 

Amendment of the Whole prepared in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution approving, retroactively, the second year renewal (FY 2001-2002) of the Public Utilities 

Commission Program Management Services Contract with the San Francisco Water Alliance; releasing 

$3,000,000 of the Program Management Office funds. (Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



011735 [Reserved Funds, Public Utilities Commission] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds (placed on reserve pending the continuance of the San Francisco 

Water Alliance contract), Public Utilities Commission, in the amount of $121,276 to recruit and fill the 0954, 

Deputy Director IV position, needed for the success of the multi-year capital improvement program. (Public 

Utilities Commission) 

9/28/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 10, 2001 

meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public 
Utilities Commission; David Novogrodsky, Local 21; Supervisor Daly; Art Jensen, General Manager, Bay 
Aea Water Users Association; Jim Chappel, President, SPUR; Lee Glitch, President, Chamber of Commerce; 
Stan Warren, San Francisco Building Trades Council; Thomas M. Berliner; Alan Gibson, Budget Analyst's 
Office; John Cloosner, Program Manager, San Francisco Water Alliance; Mike Quan, Manager, Utilities 
Engineering Bureau, Public Utilities Commission; Jeet Bajwa, Utilities Engineering Bureau, Public Utilities 
Commission; Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office, Edward Harrington, Controller, Theodore Lakey, Deputy 
City Attorney. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $121 ,276 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 3:02 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes October 51, 2001 



011774 [Reserved Funds, S.F. Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, S.F. Environment (State grant funds, File No. 01 1431: 

Resolution No. 647-01), in the amount of $6.75 million to fund the Power Booster small business energy 

efficiency retrofit program. (Environment) 

10/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 17, 2001 

meeting. 

10/17/01, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. Continued to October 31,2001. 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Har\>ey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 rrinhd ai i.-M P.M on 3/3/04 



0.96 
1 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



October 25, 2001 



TO: '.Finance Committee 

FROM: -Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: pctober 31, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 and 2 - File 01-1885 and 01-1889 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

OCT 2 9 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 



Items: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: